crosstabs n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Crosstabs PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Crosstabs

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 44

Crosstabs - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 123 Views
  • Uploaded on

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.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Crosstabs' - ivrit


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
types of relationships
Types of relationships
  • Linear
  • Spurious
  • Intervening
  • Interaction effects
does past participation affect current participation
Does past participation affect current participation?
  • Before September 2004, had you ever written a letter to some member of the local government? yes, no
but is this spurious
But, is this spurious?

Z

Participation before Violence

Participation after Violence

What could be Z?

z could be self efficacy
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.
if self efficacy is low
…if self efficacy is low

Pearson r = .10

syntax

temporary.

select if capabyou < 3.

crosstabs tables = polpartbesc by letterloc/cells = col/stats = corr.

so what is the conclusion
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.
intervening relationship
Intervening relationship

Political interest

Self efficacy

Participation

political interest and political participation
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

slide21
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?
political interest and participation when self efficacy is high
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

political interest and participation when self efficacy is low
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

slide30
Does perceived political advantage reduce the likelihood of litigation?
    • (in the case of the Moscow Theater case)
what causes people to litigate against their government with regard to the moscow theater incident
What causes people to litigate against their government?(with regard to the Moscow Theater incident)
  • How should this variable be measured?
theory from the u s political disadvantage
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.
political disadvantage
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

theory
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
theory1
Theory
  • Why is it that when people think the courts are more unfair, they are MORE likely to litigate?
  • UGH!
anger
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?
slide41
Perhaps the negative correlation between perceptions of fairness and litigation is particularly negative when people have reason to be angry – they are politically disadvantaged
slide42
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
slide43

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