Download
1 / 11
110 likes | 179 Views
Anthro 174AW Stephen Kim. SCCS and V1764 “React2Viol”. Initial Hypothesis .
E N D
Anthro 174AW Stephen Kim SCCS and V1764 “React2Viol”
Initial Hypothesis • To research the Role of Parents and the effect on a Child’s future childhood. Also My predetermined assumptions are that parental aggression and behavior is what children adapt to and what shapes their conscious mind. I initially believed that the type of exposure would be key to the child’s outcome.
Initial DepVar and Ind Variable Depvar INDvar (23) nonparentinvolveg=SCCS$v378,nonparentinvolvlb=SCCS$v379, nonparentinvolvlg=SCCS$v380,princnonparenteb=SCCS$v381, princnonparenteg=SCCS$v382,princnonparentlb=SCCS$v383, princnonparentlg=SCCS$v384,nonparinvolveb=SCCS$v393, nonparinvolveg=SCCS$v394,nonparinvolvlb=SCCS$v395, nonparinvolvlg=SCCS$v396,princnonpardiseb=SCCS$v397, princnonpardiseg=SCCS$v398,princnonpardislb=SCCS$v399, princnonpardislg=SCCS$v400,importmothbandg=SCCS$v988, importoffathbandg=SCCS$v991,importothersboys=SCCS$v992, importothersgirls=SCCS$v994,importsiblings=SCCS$v996, imp_grandparent=SCCS$v997, singularprinrelcaretakerinfant=SCCS$v55, prinrelcaretakeryoung=SCCS$v56, SCCS V1764 [react2viol] (Reaction of Socializing Agents Towards Violent Behavior of Boys in Late Childhood.)
Regression Results off Previous Posted Variables High VIF’s Were already Weeded out DRW took out 8 different Depvars as they were causing problems to the regression program.. They were either computationally singular or had too few cases. The only thing that shows as important here is Segadlboys v242 (segregation of adolescent boys) and Agrlateboy v300 but Crosstabs showed that these Probabilities were still too high. (agression late boy) Still not good enough. Restricted model still did not have the probability low enough to be sig.
Restricted model with Depvar v492, Warmth of Caretakers Money, Prinrelcaretakeryoung v56 (Principal relationships of caretakers for the young), and agression late boy v300 are somewhat significant but not significant enough.. Fyll Fydd is TOO HIGH!
Restricted Model with v528, Control by Caretakers Importance of Mother for both boys and girls, without regard to gender SCCS v988 is seen here to be significant at the pvalue of 0.034 V516 showed better results however DRW found that the Exclusive care by mother leads to the highest correlation of control of boys and girls. Distance and Language are also very high here.
Restricted Model with Depvar v516, Indifference of Caretakers.. MY FINAL RESULTS 1.These are much better results.. Fyll and Fydd probability value is within reason but money p-value is high and so is segregated adolescent boys.
Restricted Model with Depvar v516, Indifference of Caretakers.Final results Reset: There are nonlinear Transformat Ions of Ind. Var Wald: There are no Significant excluded Varibles NCV: Autocorrelations are bunched Swnormal:Autocorrelations are not Normally distributed Lagll: There are additional network Effects in this variable Lagdd: There are additional network Effects in this variable.
Final Hypothesis!! I would infer that the indifference of caretakers has an effect on the conscious minds of segregated adolescent boys. The model shows a prediction from segregated adolescent boys to the indifference of caretakers. Perhaps the correlation between these two variables is due to third factors, like the presence of men’s societies that socialize children, especially males. Next are two maps.
What the maps show is that segregation of boys occurs in clusters in <50% of the equatorial region. Indifference of caretakers occurs in some of those clusters and fewer cases at higher latitudes. It doesn’t seem from the regions involved that the parents have much to worry about with their children, or that presence of money would be significant.
