probability RDD
Vanderbilt Poll
Vanderbilt Poll Tennessee, Fall 2022 · Nov 8–28, 2022 · US: Tennessee
Methodology
- Pollster
- Vanderbilt Poll academic
- Sponsor
- Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions (CSDI), Vanderbilt University
- Fielded
- Nov 8–28, 2022
- Population
- registered voters
- Sample size
- 1,180
- Sample frame
- probability RDD
- Mode
- telephone - CATI, live interviewer, landline and cell phone, fielded by SSRS
- Margin of error
- +/- 3.4 percentage points
- Weighting
- two-stage weighting: base weight for differential selection probabilities across sample strata, then post-stratification raking to Tennessee registered-voter parameters for sex, age, race, education and region; missing raking values hot-deck imputed
- Geography
- US: Tennessee
- Base notes
- Several items were asked of a random half sample; the half-sample n is recorded on each question's results rows.
Sources
Verification note. Read from Vanderbilt's Fall 2022 topline PDF (header: n=1,180 TN registered voters, +/-3.4 points, fielded November 8-28, 2022, interviews in English by SSRS). Both trans items were asked of half samples.
Figures below are transcribed from these documents. Where they disagree with the source, the source governs.
Questions asked (2)
requiring middle- and high-school students to play on the team matching their sex at birth
Do you (support) or (oppose) requiring students to play on the team that matches their gender at the time of birth if they want to play in middle and high school sports? [OPTIONS IN PARENTHESES WERE ROTATED] [THEN PROBE: Do you (support/oppose) strongly or somewhat?]
Strongly support
59%
Strongly oppose
14%
Somewhat support
13%
Somewhat oppose
10%
(VOL.) DK
4%
(VOL.) REF
1%
Wording notes: does not use the word 'transgender'; the target group is identified only as students whose current team would not match 'their gender at the time of birth' | 'gender at the time of birth' rather than 'sex assigned at birth'
tilts_restrictive — The restrictive option is stated as a positive requirement ('requiring students to play on the team that matches their gender at the time of birth') while the affirming position is left implicit in 'oppose'; no transgender student is named, so the respondent is not told who the requirement excludes.
legislation restricting transgender Americans' access to health care (asked without an age limit)
Overall, do you (support) or (oppose) legislation that would place restrictions on transgender Americans' access to health care? [OPTIONS IN PARENTHESES WERE ROTATED] [THEN PROBE: Do you (support/oppose) strongly or somewhat?]
Strongly oppose
49%
Somewhat oppose
18%
Strongly support
14%
Somewhat support
11%
(VOL.) DK
5%
(VOL.) REF
2%
Wording notes: says 'transgender Americans' with no age qualifier, so it covers adults and minors together | 'restrictions on ... access to health care' does not say what would be restricted
neutral — Support and oppose are both offered and rotated, and the policy is described in its own terms without an argument attached. The generality of 'restrictions on access to health care' is a measurement limitation rather than a tilt: respondents supply their own referent.