slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
2005 SRC Summer Internship Symposium PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
2005 SRC Summer Internship Symposium

2005 SRC Summer Internship Symposium

208 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

2005 SRC Summer Internship Symposium

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. 2005 SRC Summer Internship Symposium Date: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 Time: 12:00 – 2:00 p.m. Place: ISR Building, Room 6050

  2. Welcome • SRC Diversity Initiative • Overall purpose of the program is to provide students with hands-on experience in survey research • Expected Outcomes • Today’s Agenda

  3. Selection Process • Selection Committee (PAC staff) • 6 interns in 2005 (3 graduates, 3 undergraduates) • Matched students with potential sponsors based on the student’s interest and educational/professional experience, and skill set. • Emily Beam (Economic Behavior-Richard Curtin) • Anna Camacho (Life Course Development-Toni Antonucci) • Jenna Keedy (Family and Demography-Linda Young-DeMarco) • Rebekah King (Social Environment and Health-David Williams) • Rachel Orlowski (Social Environment and Health-Amiram Vinokur) • Diaan Van der Westhuizen (Survey Methodology-Bob Groves & Urban Environment-Bob Marans) • Selection of Summer Institute Coursework

  4. Jenna KeedyFamily and Demography InternLinda Young-DeMarco Religiosity and Education

  5. Sponsor Project: Religiosity and Education Using Monitoring the Future Data • Replication Project: Sacerdote & Glaeser

  6. Sponsor Project: Religiosity and EducationMonitoring the Future Survey • Monitoring the Future Survey (MTF): 1975-present • Annual administration to approximately 15,000 high school seniors • Nationally representative sample of schools • Each school is sampled for 2 years, ½ of schools replaced each year • Demographic, drug use, and lifestyle questions • 6 Forms • Sub-sample follow-ups • The original cohort is now age mid-40s

  7. Sponsor Project: Religiosity and EducationThornton, Kimball, Young-DeMarco, & Mitchell Project* • Major Question: What is the effect of education on religiosity? Different Different Different College Curriculum Thoughts, Major Values, Ideas Religiosity * Theories, literature, data from author’s ongoing paper

  8. Sponsor Project: Religiosity and EducationQuestions from MTF Survey • 6 total questions about some aspect of religion on MTF survey • 2 key questions addressing religiosity: • How often do you attend religious services? • How important is religion in your life? • College major reported at three times: Follow-up 1 (1-2 years post HS) Follow-up 2 (3-4 years post HS) Follow-up 3 (5-6 years post HS)

  9. Sponsor Project: Religiosity and EducationAnalysis • Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression (and LISREL), logistic regression, and multinomial logit regression run on STATA 8. • Creation/formatting of tables for use in analysis and publication. • Learned how to interpret coefficients, standard errors, and p-values.

  10. Interpretation Example • Question: How important is religion in your life? Not important A little important Pretty important Very important • OLS Regression • Humanities • Social Science

  11. Logistic Regression • No College • Other • Multinomial Logit • Humanities

  12. Replication Project:Education and ReligionSacerdote & Glaeser (2001)National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 8080. • Introduction to research process: Literature and theory Data analysis – STATA 8 Interpretations & Conclusions

  13. Background • Sacerdote & Glaeser: • General Social Survey (GSS): 1972-1988 • Collected every two years • Cross-sectional: 1,500 random respondents • Main Finding: Education Increases  Attendance Increases • Explanation? • Education Increases Social Returns (Attendance) • Less Social Individuals • Replication: • Monitoring the Future (MTF) public data available from Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) • Cross-sectional: Year 2003, N=15,200 • Base year only (high school administration)

  14. Variables • Religious Attendance • Sacerdote & Glaeser: Never, More than once a week (Collapsed) • Replication: • Never, Rarely, Once/twice a month, About once a week or more • Education • Sacerdote & Glaeser: Years of Education Completed • Replication: Expected Years of Education Completed • How likely is it that you will do each of the following things after high school? A. Attend a technical or vocational school B. Graduate from a two-year college program C. Graduate from a four-year college program D. Attend graduate or professional school after college 1=Definitely Won’t 2=Probably Won’t 3=Probably Will 4=Definitely Will

  15. Future Educational Plans • Highest expected level of education

  16. Variables Continued • Social Measure: • Sacerdote & Glaeser: • Number of group memberships • Replication: • During a typical week, how many evenings do you go out for fun and recreation? 1=“Less than one” Collapsed: 2=“One” 1=“Less than one” 3=“Two” 2=“One-Two” 4=“Three” 3=“Three-Five” 5=“Four or Five” 4=“Six-Seven” 6=“Six or Seven”

  17. Replication:Educational Plans and Attendance • Sacerdote & Glaeser: Education Increases  Attendance Increases • Replication:

  18. Replication:Educational Plans and Social • Sacerdote & Glaeser: Education Increases  Social Increases • Replication:

  19. Replication: Social and Attendance • Sacerdote & Glaeser: Social Membership  Attendance • Replication:

  20. Replication: Less Social People • Sacerdote & Glaeser • Less social people (membership in no social groups): Education  Attendance More Weakly Related • Replication – All: Coefficient=.090 (p=.000, r2=.075)

  21. Replication: Less Social People

  22. Conclusions • Education  Social Activity  Religious Attendance • Informal Social Activity = Formal Social Activity • Future Research

  23. Thank you! • Linda Young-DeMarco and everyone in Family and Demography • George Myers and Ana Ormsby

  24. Rebekah KingSocial Environment and HealthYES Health Study

  25. SRC Internship YES Health Study Background Daily Dairy Stress Findings Introduction

  26. SRC Summer Internship • Social Environment and Health • Sponsor: David Williams Ph.D. • South Africa Stress and Health Study/Ypsilanti Everyday Stress and Health Study

  27. Ypsilanti Everyday Stress and Health Study (YES Health) • Exploratory/Pilot Study • Specific Aims • Examine relationship between unfair treatment, unachievable life goals, and psychological stress. • Explain the impact of race, socio-economic status (SES), and neighborhood on health. • Provide more information on stressors experienced by non-majority, non-middle class respondents. • Findings used to refine methods for future studies of unfair treatment and mental health.

  28. YES Health cont. • Sample drawn from 4 distinct (racially homogenous, economically diverse) Ypsilanti neighborhoods • Low Income White • Low Income Black • Moderate Income White • Moderate Income Black

  29. Stress, Race, Neighborhood Context: Findings from YES Health Study

  30. Macro System Stressors Sudden Traumas Chronic Stressors Life Change Events Nonevents Daily Hassles MOST DISCRETE MOST CONTINUOUS The Stress Continuum Source: Wheaton, B. in Horowitz , A and Scheid, T. (eds.) Handbook for the Study of Mental Health: Social Contexts. Theories and Systems. Cambridge University Press, 1999.

  31. YES Health: Measurement of Stress • Importance of varied measurement well documented (Wheaton,1999). • Types of stressors vary along continuum (e.g. trauma, life events daily hassles, neighborhood stress, exposure to violence). • Stressor measured with face-to-face in depth interviews, and brief telephone interviews.

  32. Telephone Interviews (IW’s) • “Modified” Daily Diary • Telephone IW’s used in place of actual respondent diary • Rationale • Validation of other measurements • Alternate Conceptualization of Stress • Cortisol Sample (Evening) • Current Information on Medications

  33. Telephone Interviews cont. • Three brief interviews (2 weekdays, and 1 weekend day) during evening completed between second and third in-person interviews. • Ascertained information on perceived stressfulness of day. • Measured tensions/difficulties getting along with others, minor annoyance, hassles, irritations, and most stressful experience of the day.

  34. Methods • Transcribed open ended responses to “most stressful experience/event today” • Coded line-by-line • A priori • Inductive • Descriptive Analyses

  35. Measure: “Most stressful” experience of the day Considering all of your experiences today, what event or experience was the most stressful for you? This could be a problem involving your family, something involving work, or something as minor as getting caught in a traffic jam. Can you tell me what happened and what was stressful about it?

  36. Sample Responses and Corresponding Codes

  37. Research Questions • What stressful experiences are being reported? (Domains) • Are there any differences in reports of stressful experiences by race, neighborhood, and other demographic factors?

  38. Respondents • N =88 • Race: 53% White, 47% Black • Sex: 49% Male, 51% Female • Age: Min. 20, Max 55, Mean 40 • SES: 49% Low SES, 51% Mid SES • Relationship Status: 68% Married/ Romantically Involved, 31% No Relationship

  39. Daily Stressful Events and Experiences • 66% of respondents reported a stressful event/experience over all three interviews. • 35% respondents never reported a stressful experience. • No significant differences in having/reporting a stress event across race, SES, sex, block sample, or relationship status.

  40. Family Friends Work School Personal Appearance Neighborhood Health Keeping Household Police/Legal Matter Spiritual or Religious Life Children Spouse/Intimate Partner Money/Finances Other Traffic/Driving Car Problems/ Transportation Decision-Making Disappointment Loss Domains for Stressful Events

  41. 20 10 Frequency 0 loss work other family school friends children traffic/driving no stress health issues car problems/transp money/finances decision-making disappointments police/legal matter spouse/partner or in personal appearance keeping house /house Domain of Stressful Experience or Event Stress Domains at Interview 1

  42. 30 20 Frequency 10 0 loss work other family school friends children traffic/driving no stress health issues car problems/transp money/finances decision-making police/legal matter spouse/partner or in personal appearance keeping house /house Domain of Stressful Experience or Event Stress Domains at Interview 2

  43. 20 Frequency 10 0 work other family friends children no stress traffic/driving health issues neighborhood money/finances perceived discrimin decision-making car problems/Transp spouse/partner or in keeping house /house Domain of Stressful Experience or Event Stress Domains at Interview 3

  44. Differences in Work Related Stress by Gender • Men were more likely than women to report their most stressful event or experience of the day related to work. p=.009

  45. Difference in Work Related Stress by Neighborhood/SES • Mid-income respondents were about 12% more likely to report work related stress than low income respondents. • Relationship hold across neighborhoods. Mid-income blacks and whites report more work related stress than low income blacks and whites. RESPONDENTS WORK RELATED STRESS

  46. Stress Related to Child(ren) • Women (33%) more likely than men (13%) to report stress related to children. (p=.002) • Married or romantically involved respondents were 30% more likely to report stress relating to children more than those not in a relationship. (p=.03) • Almost twice as many whites reported stress related to children as did blacks. (not significant p=.061) • Relationship holds across neighborhoods, where both low and mid SES whites reported more stress related to their children than low and mid SES blacks.

  47. Other Findings • No neighborhood related stressful experiences reported. • Very little reported money/finances related stress. • No significant differences across race, neighborhood or SES for new categories/domains (traffic/driving and decision-making stress).

  48. Summary • On a given day the “most stressful event or experience” falls within 4 domains (work, children, health, and traffic). • Differences exist in stressful experiences with respect to neighborhood, race, SES, and gender.

  49. Conclusion • Findings limited due to sample size and exploratory nature of study. • Most stressful experience were primarily related to work and the home (children). • Existing domains or categories of stress do not reflect all experiences reported on a daily basis. • Findings provide insight on others stress categories or domains to be included in future studies.

  50. Future Directions • Findings can be linked to larger YES Health Data set to assess relationship between daily diary stress and other stressors. • Consistency in methodology and usefulness in validating daily hassles findings. • Further study is needed to better understand the role neighborhood context in daily dairy stress.