Introduction
National debt is a controversial issue, giving rise to debates among politicians and economic analysts. The survey was done on college and university students, about their view on the national debts and their influence on the economy and distribution of income. The survey also aimed at gauging the students’ stand on how national debt impacted on the main sectors in service and commodity markets. Moreover, the survey mainly used close-ended questions to source answers from the audience. However, open-ended questions were rarely used. Apparently, close-ended questions include questions which allow the audience to provide their opinion about an issue of interests (Doherty, 1996). For example, question three is an open-ended question, which provides the audience with an incentive to air their opinions. Other issues in the survey are also close-ended questions, as the reader is confined to a scale for answers. Thus, the audience is subjected to questions about their view on national debt, and the effects of debt on national development. Questions 4, 15, 16,17,18,19 and 23, show the necessary areas that national debts affect as far as the welfare of the audience is concerned.
Summary of results
Principally, the survey results depicted that students felt the drag that the national debt was caused on income distribution, allocation of retirement benefits, as well as its role in increased taxation. Question number sixteen shows that most students feel that national debt is to blame for restructured taxation, in a bid to pay off the national debt. Moreover, results from the survey depict a whopping 77% turnout of individuals, who are motivated to decrease the national debt, and reduce the negative implications of national debt on the national economy. Also in questions three, the survey also shows that a small proportion of students know the current debt status of the country, as well as the impacts that debts have on the economy, and availability of goods and services. For example, in the audience’s response to question 3, students show unrealistic estimations of the value of national debt and do some of them do not know the state of debts entirely. Additionally, exaggerated figures for national debt by over 50% of the students, places the audience at an uninformed position on the issues pertaining national debt. Moreover, in question 4, half of the audience is not aware of the current implications on the economy, that debt has had, and 33% do not have any knowledge about the debt situation.
Interpretation of results
Results from the survey provided valuable information about debt and student’s perception of national debt on the economy. Apparently, the structuring and nature of questions played a bigger role in providing unbiased information from students. The nature of the audience also required the application of strategies to bypass cognitive barriers to a successful survey. In this accord, all questions were structured to fit the student audience. For instance, questions to source information about national debts were peripherally placed, for students to provide openly their opinions, and also confine responses to some questions. Also, a similar question at number 15, 16 and 17 ensures that answers provided in question 3 give a significant trend the significance of national debt, especially when the audience is confined to a scale.
Thus, an open-ended question at the beginning of a survey instrument (question 3) helps to connect with the audience and motivate them to provide answers that best fit their convenience. Question three incorporates additional techniques like peripheral processing, and the social judgment theory, as it does not provide any argument for the audience to base their argument (Doherty, 1996). Hence, answers provided in question three are not compelled in any form and provide uncontrived answers. Social judgment theory plays a part in providing the audience to give their standing on the issue of volunteering and exemplifies any cultural beliefs and attitudes that may pose a challenge in answering other questions in the survey instrument (Doherty, 1996).
Furthermore, the survey shows how students and other persons entitled to debt are indifferent about the current toll national debt is taking on their current incomes, the quality of Medicare and the distortion of the job market. Therefore, 84% of the audience strongly believes that the hefty national debts are likely to cause problems in the job market. Cognitive dissonance is used in question 3, and it provides the audience with a scenario for evaluating their behavior, and beliefs about debt finance, and then provide a testimonial on a scale, on the implications of current debts that the state must remit in dollars. Thus, cognitive dissonance is a facet to persuade indirectly the audience to communicate cognitive trends unknowingly (Brehm, & Cohen, 1962).
Moreover, the audience believes that national debt causes considerable harm to the economy. For example, in question 23, about 78% of the audience attributes the 2008 economic recession to an increase in national debt in the economy, while a small portion of the audience believes that debts had nothing to do with the financial crisis in the economy in 2008. Despite the question giving an insight into the cause of the recession, some information about other factors responsible for the 2008 recession is withheld from the audience, which gives room for contrast and assimilation, so that the audience can establish the best case scenarios for the crisis, and thus give suitable correspondence.
Barriers
The National debt is not an issue that every student is conversant, as some individuals’ perceive it as a normal venture of life, and rarely notice debts effects in their environment, or the economy, until national debts directly hit them. Thus, sourcing debt information from students is not an easy task, as it calls for the formulation of questions that eliminate cognitive dissonance (Brehm, & Cohen, 1962). Students may be impaled by beliefs, attitudes and individual cultures that could predispose of issues that concern their central interest to biased answers. For instance, asking students if they feel educated about debts may not reflect positively in their way of thinking. Moreover, peripherally placed arguments, are not appropriate for students, as they need an argument on which to base answers, and absence of arguments may lead to the provision of lengthy and unnecessary answers.
Conversely, the survey gives a good insight into the benefits of the knowledge of national debt in the quest to mitigate excessive debts in the economy. Therefore, a majority of the audience thinks that debt is necessary to their lives and that they possess that necessary knowledge for managing national debts. The knowledge about national debt may be biased based on the nature of the questions used to source the information. However, the audience seems to agree with negative implications of the national debt in their working lives, and even support the idea of reducing the national debt, because national debts are having a negative influence on income, taxation and the retirement fund, provided but the government.
Limitations
Despite the questions about the national debt survey being well placed and formulated, certain flaws were detected through the way the audience reacted to some questions. For instance, most questions were aimed at scaling responses in a chart, which could not give enough room for opinions. Thus, the reasons why the audience chose one stand over the other could not be established. Provision of more open-ended questions like number 3, could have provided a better insight to the survey, as the audience would feel more obligated to provide in-depth information about how to mitigate national debts.
Furthermore, use of peripherally placed arguments, which compel answers to move in a confined direction, may not be ambient to source information from students, and it may give rise to unreliable information. Moreover, Clarity of terms could significantly help in avoiding misjudgment in the survey. In order to ensure clarity of questions and acquisition of considerable feedback, it is necessary to provide the audience with questions which ensure uniformity of knowledge, and remittance of opinions.
References
Brehm, J. W., & Cohen, A. R. (1962). Explorations in cognitive dissonance. New York: Wiley.
Doherty, M. E. (1996). Social judgment theory. Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press.
