Crosstabs

1. Crosstabs

2. Types of relationships • Linear • Spurious • Intervening • Interaction effects

3. Spurious effects

4. Does past participation affect current participation? • Before September 2004, had you ever written a letter to some member of the local government? yes, no

5. Past and current participation

6. Correlation

7. But, is this spurious? Z Participation before Violence Participation after Violence What could be Z?

8. What is the theoretical argument that this relationship is spurious? (What is the common cause?)

9. Z could be self efficacy • Self efficacy causes both past and current political participation. • So, the idea is that past participation is not the only cause of current political participation. • So, we need to control for self efficacy.

10. Self efficacy

11. …if self efficacy is low Pearson r = .10 syntax temporary. select if capabyou < 3. crosstabs tables = polpartbesc by letterloc/cells = col/stats = corr.

12. …if self efficacy is medium

13. Correlation

15. …if self efficacy is high

16. So, what is the conclusion? • Past participation only has an impact when self efficacy is high. • Controlling for self efficacy, the effect of past participation on current participation is mitigated. • Therefore, the effect is partially spurious.

17. Intervening effects

18. Intervening relationship Political interest Self efficacy Participation

19. Alternate cause Political interest Self efficacy Participation

20. So, let’s look at the relationship between political interest and participation

21. Political interest and political participation Pearson R = .29

22. So, now what do we need to do to see if political interest has an effect on participation BECAUSE it causes self efficacy? • In other words, how do we find out that the only way interest has an impact on participation is because interest causes self efficacy?

23. Crosstabs, controlling for self efficacy • If the relationship between political interest and participation is mitigated (lower), controlling for self efficacy, then it is perhaps spurious or intervening • If the relationship is maintained even after controlling for self efficacy, then we say we have alternate causes

24. Political interest and participation when self efficacy is high Pearson r = .27

25. Political interest and participation when self efficacy is low Pearson r = .28

26. Conclusion • Political interest has a direct effect on participation, controlling for self efficacy

27. So, does controlling for political interest mitigate the effect of self efficacy on political participation?

28. Linear relationship between self efficacy and political participation

29. Correlation between self efficacy and political participation

30. Self efficacy and participation when political interest is low

31. Self efficacy and participation when political interest is high

32. Conclusion • Empirical analysis shows us that it is neither spurious or intervening, since the relationship is not mitigated • Note that, when the relationship is mitigated only THEORY can determine whether it is spurious or intervening