In late 2003, Jost and colleagues received death threats for publishing a paper that said that being politically conservative served a number of ‘existential.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 What is? Structural Equation Modeling (A Very Brief Introduction) Patrick Sturgis University of Surrey.
Advertisements

Predicting Youth Engagement: The Role of Initiating and Sustaining Factors Linda Rose-Krasnor 1, Kelly Campbell 1, Lisa Loiselle 2, Mark Pancer 3, Michael.
Advanced Methods and Analysis for the Learning and Social Sciences PSY505 Spring term, 2012 March 12, 2012.
Lesson 10: Linear Regression and Correlation
Structural Equation Modeling
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Random effects as latent variables: SEM for repeated measures data Dr Patrick Sturgis University of Surrey.
Chapter 17 Making Sense of Advanced Statistical Procedures in Research Articles.
Factor Analysis Ulf H. Olsson Professor of Statistics.
Common Factor Analysis “World View” of PC vs. CF Choosing between PC and CF PAF -- most common kind of CF Communality & Communality Estimation Common Factor.
When Measurement Models and Factor Models Conflict: Maximizing Internal Consistency James M. Graham, Ph.D. Western Washington University ABSTRACT: The.
“Ghost Chasing”: Demystifying Latent Variables and SEM
Structural Equation Modeling
CHAPTER 30 Structural Equation Modeling From: McCune, B. & J. B. Grace Analysis of Ecological Communities. MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach,
Measurement Models and CFA Ulf H. Olsson Professor of Statistics.
Correlation 1. Correlation - degree to which variables are associated or covary. (Changes in the value of one tends to be associated with changes in the.
Solving Systems of Equations
Multivariate Methods EPSY 5245 Michael C. Rodriguez.
Factor Analysis Psy 524 Ainsworth.
Multiple Sample Models James G. Anderson, Ph.D. Purdue University.
1 Use of SEM programs to precisely measure scale reliability Yutaka Kano and Yukari Azuma Osaka University IMPS2001, July 15-19,2001 Osaka, Japan.
Introduction to CFA. LEARNING OBJECTIVES: Upon completing this chapter, you should be able to do the following: Distinguish between exploratory factor.
An example of a CFA: Evaluating an existing scale.
Kayla Jordan D. Wayne Mitchell RStats Institute Missouri State University.
Factor analysis: Seeing clearly Paul Jose Thought for the day: “Goalkeeper Richard Siddall (Sheffield, England) stayed on the field for 10 minutes after.
CJT 765: Structural Equation Modeling Class 7: fitting a model, fit indices, comparingmodels, statistical power.
1 Variable selection for factor analysis and structural equation models Yutaka Kano & Akira Harada Osaka University International Symposium on Structural.
Family Foster Care (FFC) and Therapeutic Foster Care (TFC) Parents' Motivation, Stress and Satisfaction with Fostering: Part 3 Michael Brand, Ph.D. David.
SEM: Basics Byrne Chapter 1 Tabachnick SEM
Factor validation of the Consideration of Future Consequences Scale: An Assessment and Review Tom R. EikebrokkEllen K. NyhusUniversity of Agder.
1 Exploratory & Confirmatory Factor Analysis Alan C. Acock OSU Summer Institute, 2009.
ROB CRIBBIE QUANTITATIVE METHODS PROGRAM – DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY COORDINATOR - STATISTICAL CONSULTING SERVICE COURSE MATERIALS AVAILABLE AT:
Path Analysis. Remember What Multiple Regression Tells Us How each individual IV is related to the DV The total amount of variance explained in a DV Multiple.
Multiple Linear Regression. Purpose To analyze the relationship between a single dependent variable and several independent variables.
Advanced Correlational Analyses D/RS 1013 Factor Analysis.
CJT 765: Structural Equation Modeling Class 8: Confirmatory Factory Analysis.
Factor Analysis Revealing the correlational structure among variables Understanding & Reducing Complexity.
Measurement Models: Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis James G. Anderson, Ph.D. Purdue University.
Introduction A small but growing literature points to an important connection between forgiveness and physical health (Worthington, Witvliet, Lerner, &
Multigroup Models Byrne Chapter 7 Brown Chapter 7.
Aron, Aron, & Coups, Statistics for the Behavioral and Social Sciences: A Brief Course (3e), © 2005 Prentice Hall Chapter 12 Making Sense of Advanced Statistical.
Multigroup Models Beaujean Chapter 4 Brown Chapter 7.
G Lecture 7 Confirmatory Factor Analysis
INFO for NACADA  Beth Yarbrough, Auburn University  Are We Singing the Same Song? Rethinking the Prescriptive/Developmental Continuum  Code 105  2012.
G Lecture 81 Comparing Measurement Models across Groups Reducing Bias with Hybrid Models Setting the Scale of Latent Variables Thinking about Hybrid.
CFA: Basics Beaujean Chapter 3. Other readings Kline 9 – a good reference, but lumps this entire section into one chapter.
Correlation and Regression: The Need to Knows Correlation is a statistical technique: tells you if scores on variable X are related to scores on variable.
1 All about variable selection in factor analysis and structural equation modeling Yutaka Kano Osaka University School of Human Sciences IMPS2001, July.
SEM Basics 2 Byrne Chapter 2 Kline pg 7-15, 50-51, ,
CJT 765: Structural Equation Modeling Class 8: Confirmatory Factory Analysis.
Exploratory Factor Analysis Principal Component Analysis Chapter 17.
Chapter 13.  Both Principle components analysis (PCA) and Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) are used to understand the underlying patterns in the data.
1 Psych 5510/6510 Chapter 13: ANCOVA: Models with Continuous and Categorical Predictors Part 3: Within a Correlational Design Spring, 2009.
ALISON BOWLING CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS. REVIEW OF EFA Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) Explores the data All measured variables are related to every.
This is a mess... How the hell can I validate the consumer behaviors’ scales of my SEM model? Maria Pujol-Jover 1, Irene Esteban-Millat 1 1 Marketing Research.
CFA Model Revision Byrne Chapter 4 Brown Chapter 5.
Special Topics in Educational Data Mining HUDK5199 Spring, 2013 April 3, 2013.
The Moral Framing Scale (MFS): Measuring Moral Perceptions of Social Issues Katherine R. G. White & Ciara Kidder Columbus State University & University.
Chapter 17 STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)  Relatively new statistical technique used to test theoretical or causal.
CFA: Basics Byrne Chapter 3 Brown Chapter 3 (40-53)
1University of Oklahoma 2Shaker Consulting
Structural Equation Modeling using MPlus
Chapter 15 Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Question So, I’ve done my factor analysis.
Openness and Intellect Differentially Predict Right-Wing Authoritarianism Victoria Hotchin June 9, 2017 Supervisors: Keon west, Agnieszka Golec De Zavala.
CJT 765: Structural Equation Modeling
Making Sense of Advanced Statistical Procedures in Research Articles
EPSY 5245 EPSY 5245 Michael C. Rodriguez
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Metacognitive Failure as a Feature of Those Holding Radical Beliefs
Presentation transcript:

In late 2003, Jost and colleagues received death threats for publishing a paper that said that being politically conservative served a number of ‘existential functions’, not all of which were positive… Both SDO and RWA were significant predictors…

 Right-Wing Authoritarianism  Social Dominance Orientation Here’s my take on this…

Consider (again) the correlations between Social Dominance, Authoritarianism, and Political Conservatism: Both SDO and RWA are significantly correlated with Conservatism, BUT they are also correlated with each other.

Controlling for.. RWASCALE S6O_SHOR SDOSCALE S6O_SHOR ( 0) ( 403) P=. P=.000 SDOSCALE ( 403) ( 0) P=.000 P=. Controlling for.. SDOSCALE S6O_SHOR RWASCALE S6O_SHOR ( 0) ( 403) P=. P=.000 RWASCALE ( 403) ( 0) P=.000 P=. So, the question is whether the variation that these two variables share with conservatism is unique (e.g., SDO and RWA explain different ‘parts’ of conservatism), or shared (e.g., they both explain the same bit)… Partial correlations can help:.65  .50

Controlling for.. S6O_SHOR RWASCALE SDOSCALE RWASCALE ( 0) ( 403) P=. P=.173 SDOSCALE ( 40) ( 0) P=.173 P=. And we can look at the relationship between RWA and SDO once we partial out Conservatism (the bit the two share with conservatism):.45 .07

So… what does this tell us? The major part of variance that SDO (and RWA) share with conservatism, is unique to SDO (and RWA) – the part of Conservatism that they explain does not overlap (much). The major part of the the variation that SDO and RWA share is also shared in common with Conservatism. Given the results of these analyses, what would you expect to find if you regressed Conservatism onto SDO and RWA?

EXCELLENT!… …as long as SDO, RWA, and conservatism are NOT the same thing! Remember – Jost et al., say that antiegalitarianism and resistance to change are defining characteristics of conservatism, not the psychological basis of it. If you EFA the SDO and RWA scales they seem to reduce fairly neatly into two, clearly distinguishable, factors, but… When you include the conservatism items it gets REALLY messy. What I need is a technique that will allow me to compare how good a one-factor model (SDO, RWA, Conservatism as all representing the same ‘latent’ construct) with a three factor (SDO, RWA and Conservatism as separate but correlated latent constructs). …Confirmatory Factor Analysis…

Here, we have the end result of a CFA that forces all the items (‘packeted’ together) into a one-factor solution:

And the results when we allow packets of items to ‘load’ onto their respective latent variable:

One-Factor model Χ 2 (90)=827.80, p<.001 GFI=.588 CFI=.595 RMR=.172 RMSEA=.176 Three factor model: Χ 2 (87)=182.92, p<.001 GFI=.912 CFI=.948 RMR=.044 RMSEA=.064 So, the question is whether the variation that these two variables share with conservatism is unique (e.g., SDO and RWA explain different ‘parts’ of conservatism), or shared (e.g., they both explain the same bit)… Partial correlations can help: The difference is Χ 2 (3)= (827.80–182.92) = , which is significant. This means that the data are a better fit for a model in which SDO, RWA, and conservatism are separate constructs, than if they are all parts of the same thing.

If I want to have a look at the relationship between Social Dominance, Authoritarianism, and Political Conservatism, I can do that using SEM: First, specify the paths… Then run the model

Do those unstandardised path coefficients (.35 for SDO to Conservatism and.28 for RWA to conservatism) look familiar? They should – they’re identical to the unstandardised regression coefficients we got from regressing conservatism scores onto SDO and RWA. In fact, for these examples, SEM does exactly the same thing as regression… But with SEM we can do SO much more!

Openness to Change vs Conservation Self-Transcendence vs Self-Enhancement DOMINANCE (Social Dominance Orientation) Conservatism SUBMISSION (Right-Wing Authoritarianism) Social Values → Beliefs about Subordination → Ideology Y’see – I have a theory… that political conservatism is founded on two sets of ‘deeper’ beliefs – about subordination (submission or RWA, and Domination or SDO) which are in turn founded on even more basic values – guiding principles in people’s lives.

And here it is – and it works, okayish… The fit indices are good, and the RMSEA is borderline satisfactory. If there’s one thing that looks dodgy it’s the non-significant path from openness to change to conservatism.

When I eliminate that path, the model improves…