1 / 44

Crosstabs

Crosstabs. Types of relationships. Linear Spurious Intervening Interaction effects. Spurious effects. Does past participation affect current participation?. Before September 2004, had you ever written a letter to some member of the local government? yes, no.

tale
Download Presentation

Crosstabs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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 when self efficacy is medium

  14. …if self efficacy is high

  15. Correlation when 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. So, let’s look at the relationship between political interest and participation

  20. Political interest and political participation | How much interest do you have in political polpartbes | affairs c | No intere Not very A fair am A great d | Total -----------+--------------------------------------------+---------- 0 | 174 287 61 4 | 526 | 62.59 53.35 28.64 12.12 | 49.53 -----------+--------------------------------------------+---------- 1 | 40 82 30 3 | 155 | 14.39 15.24 14.08 9.09 | 14.60 -----------+--------------------------------------------+---------- 2 | 64 169 122 26 | 381 | 23.02 31.41 57.28 78.79 | 35.88 -----------+--------------------------------------------+---------- Total | 278 538 213 33 | 1,062 | 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 | 100.00 Kendall's tau-b = 0.3511 ASE = 0.026

  21. 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 it is the ONLY reason?

  22. Political interest and participation when self efficacy is high | How much interest do you have in political polpartbes | affairs c | No intere Not very A fair am A great d | Total -----------+--------------------------------------------+---------- 0 | 107 184 52 3 | 346 | 56.61 50.55 28.57 9.68 | 45.17 -----------+--------------------------------------------+---------- 1 | 25 60 21 2 | 108 | 13.23 16.48 11.54 6.45 | 14.10 -----------+--------------------------------------------+---------- 2 | 57 120 109 26 | 312 | 30.16 32.97 59.89 83.87 | 40.73 -----------+--------------------------------------------+---------- Total | 189 364 182 31 | 766 | 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 | 100.00 Kendall's tau-b = 0.1728 ASE = 0.031 . tab polpartbesc polint if capabyou > 3, col taub

  23. Political interest and participation when self efficacy is low | How much interest do you have in political polpartbes | affairs c | No intere Not very A fair am A great d | Total -----------+--------------------------------------------+---------- 0 | 67 103 9 1 | 180 | 75.28 59.20 29.03 50.00 | 60.81 -----------+--------------------------------------------+---------- 1 | 15 22 9 1 | 47 | 16.85 12.64 29.03 50.00 | 15.88 -----------+--------------------------------------------+---------- 2 | 7 49 13 0 | 69 | 7.87 28.16 41.94 0.00 | 23.31 -----------+--------------------------------------------+---------- Total | 89 174 31 2 | 296 | 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 | 100.00 Kendall's tau-b = 0.1460 ASE = 0.046 . tab polpartbesc polint if capabyou < 3, col taub

  24. So, does controlling for political interest mitigate the effect of self efficacy?

  25. Linear relationship between self efficacy and political participation

  26. Correlation between self efficacy and political participation

  27. Self efficacy and participation when political interest is low

  28. Self efficacy and participation when political interest is high

  29. Interaction effects

  30. Does perceived political advantage reduce the likelihood of litigation? • (in the case of the Moscow Theater case)

  31. What causes people to litigate against their government?(with regard to the Moscow Theater incident) • How should this variable be measured?

  32. Measure of litigation(with regard to the Moscow Theater incident) freq vars = litigant.

  33. Theory from the U.S.: Political Disadvantage • When people feel alienated from traditional avenues of participation or representation, then they may be more likely to participate in litigation.

  34. Political Disadvantage Measure: the highest answer from the following two questions How well do you believe that President Putin represents your interests? How well do you believe that the current Duma represents your interests? very well, rather well, not very well, not at all well

  35. Crosstab Analysis: Is political advantage related to litigation?

  36. crosstabs tables = litigant by reph/cells = col/stats = corr.

  37. Theory • People tend to use procedures that they believe will be fair • Thus, perception of fairness of the courts causes litigation • How carefully will the court listen to the hostages side of the story? Very carefully, rather carefully, somewhat carefully, not at all carefully

  38. crosstabs tables = litigant by yourside/cells = col/stats = corr.

  39. Theory • Why is it that when people think the courts are more unfair, they are MORE likely to litigate? • UGH!

  40. Anger • Could it be that the more angry people are, they more likely they want to engage in an expressive activity – • In other words, litigation is not about the fairness of courts – it is about expressing how angry you are • How to test that?

  41. Perhaps the negative correlation between perceptions of fairness and litigation is particularly negative when people have reason to be angry – they are politically disadvantaged

  42. In this case, we are using crosstabs to test a conditional relationship: • The effect of one independent variable is intensified OR mitigated, depending on the values of another variable • The negative effect of procedural justice will intensify as political advantage decreases

  43. Perceived probability of judicial fairness Anger (political disadvantage) Litigation Proc Just Proc Just Proc Just High anger High PD Low anger High PD Med anger Med PD

More Related