1 / 106

2005 SRC Summer Internship Symposium

2005 SRC Summer Internship Symposium. Date: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 Time: 12:00 – 2:00 p.m. Place: ISR Building, Room 6050. Welcome. SRC Diversity Initiative Overall purpose of the program is to provide students with hands-on experience in survey research Expected Outcomes

Download Presentation

2005 SRC Summer Internship Symposium

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.


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.

More Related