All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Uncovering the Psychological Mechanism: How Campaigns Matter and Why
Unformatted Document Text:  Table 2A. Uncertainty model of latent vote for Carter curve (Hierarchical Logit) February Coefficient(Standard Error) Intercept -0.60 (0.97) Age -0.01* (0.003) Male 0.27* (0.12) Partisanship in first wave 0.69* (0.03) Church Attendance -0.10* (0.05) Catholic 0.02 (0.13) White -0.59* (0.19) Retrospections about Ford in first wave -0.34* (0.06) Issue distance from Carter in first wave -0.28* (0.10) Issue distance from Ford in first wave 0.29* (0.06) Carter Trait perceptions in first wave 0.16 (0.14) Ford Trait perceptions in first wave -0.12 (0.12) Carter issue uncertainty 0.02 (0.l0) Ford issue uncertainty -0.03 (0.06) Ford trait uncertainty 0.05 (0.05) Carter trait uncertainty 0.02 (0.07) Ford issue*uncertainty interaction -0.01 (0.01) Carter issue*uncertainty interaction 0.01 (0.01) Ford trait*uncertainty interaction -0.01 (0.01) Carter trait*uncertainty interaction -0.01 (0.01)April Wave June Wave September Wave October Wave Intercept 0.51* (0.12) 0.54* (0.11) 0.38* (0.10) -0.09 (0.10) Change in partisanship 0.33* (0.08) -0.10 (0.13) 0.18 (0.10)* 0.14 (0.08) Change in issue distance from Carter -0.001 (0.05) -0.13* (0.06) 0.001 (0.06) -0.09 (0.06) Change in issue distance from Ford 0.02 (0.05) 0.14* (0.05) 0.07 (0.06) 0.15* (0.06) Change in Carter trait perceptions 0.003 (0.04) -0.05 (0.05) 0.16* (0.05) 0.07 (0.05) Change in Ford trait perceptions -0.02 (0.05) -0.01 (0.06) -0.16* (0.07) -0.21 (0.05) Change in Ford retrospections 0.01 (0.08) 0.04 (0.10) -0.25* (0.08) -0.19 (0.08) Change in Ford trait uncertainty -0.02 (0.06) 0.11* (0.05) -0.05 (0.05) -0.19* (0.08) Change in Carter trait uncertainty 0.07 (0.04) 0.07 (0.05) 0.06* (0.03) 0.22* (0.04) Change in Ford issue uncertainty -0.11 (0.08) -0.04 (0.07) -0.09 (0.07) 0.23* (0.07) Change in Carter issue uncertainty -0.03 (0.06) 0.06 (0.09) -0.04 (0.08) -0.16* (0.07) Change in Ford issue*uncertainty interaction -0.002 (0.01) 0.001 (0.001) -0.02* (0.01) -0.02* (0.01) Change in Carter issue*uncertainty interaction 0.003 (0.01) -0.01 (0.01) -0.01 (0.01) 0.02* (0.01) Change in Carter trait*uncertainty interaction 0.01 (0.01) -0.02* (0.01) 0.0004 (0.01) 0.03* (0.01) Change in For trait*uncertainty interaction -0.01 (0.01) 0.02* (0.01) 0.003 (0.01) -0.06* (0.01) Table 3A. Ambivalence model of latent vote for Carter curve (Hierarchical Logit) 49

Authors: Peterson, David.
first   previous   Page 49 of 52   next   last



background image
Table 2A. Uncertainty model of latent vote for Carter curve (Hierarchical Logit)
February
Coefficient
(Standard Error)
Intercept
-0.60 (0.97)
Age
-0.01* (0.003)
Male
0.27* (0.12)
Partisanship in first wave
0.69* (0.03)
Church Attendance
-0.10* (0.05)
Catholic
0.02 (0.13)
White
-0.59* (0.19)
Retrospections about Ford in first wave
-0.34* (0.06)
Issue distance from Carter in first wave
-0.28* (0.10)
Issue distance from Ford in first wave
0.29* (0.06)
Carter Trait perceptions in first wave
0.16 (0.14)
Ford Trait perceptions in first wave
-0.12 (0.12)
Carter issue uncertainty
0.02 (0.l0)
Ford issue uncertainty
-0.03 (0.06)
Ford trait uncertainty
0.05 (0.05)
Carter trait uncertainty
0.02 (0.07)
Ford issue*uncertainty interaction
-0.01 (0.01)
Carter issue*uncertainty interaction
0.01 (0.01)
Ford trait*uncertainty interaction
-0.01 (0.01)
Carter trait*uncertainty interaction
-0.01 (0.01)
April Wave
June Wave
September Wave
October Wave
Intercept
0.51* (0.12)
0.54* (0.11)
0.38* (0.10)
-0.09 (0.10)
Change in partisanship
0.33* (0.08)
-0.10 (0.13)
0.18 (0.10)*
0.14 (0.08)
Change in issue distance from Carter
-0.001 (0.05)
-0.13* (0.06)
0.001 (0.06)
-0.09 (0.06)
Change in issue distance from Ford
0.02 (0.05)
0.14* (0.05)
0.07 (0.06)
0.15* (0.06)
Change in Carter trait perceptions
0.003 (0.04)
-0.05 (0.05)
0.16* (0.05)
0.07 (0.05)
Change in Ford trait perceptions
-0.02 (0.05)
-0.01 (0.06)
-0.16* (0.07)
-0.21 (0.05)
Change in Ford retrospections
0.01 (0.08)
0.04 (0.10)
-0.25* (0.08)
-0.19 (0.08)
Change in Ford trait uncertainty
-0.02 (0.06)
0.11* (0.05)
-0.05 (0.05)
-0.19* (0.08)
Change in Carter trait uncertainty
0.07 (0.04)
0.07 (0.05)
0.06* (0.03)
0.22* (0.04)
Change in Ford issue uncertainty
-0.11 (0.08)
-0.04 (0.07)
-0.09 (0.07)
0.23* (0.07)
Change in Carter issue uncertainty
-0.03 (0.06)
0.06 (0.09)
-0.04 (0.08)
-0.16* (0.07)
Change in Ford issue*uncertainty interaction
-0.002 (0.01)
0.001 (0.001)
-0.02* (0.01)
-0.02* (0.01)
Change in Carter issue*uncertainty interaction
0.003 (0.01)
-0.01 (0.01)
-0.01 (0.01)
0.02* (0.01)
Change in Carter trait*uncertainty interaction
0.01 (0.01)
-0.02* (0.01)
0.0004 (0.01)
0.03* (0.01)
Change in For trait*uncertainty interaction
-0.01 (0.01)
0.02* (0.01)
0.003 (0.01)
-0.06* (0.01)
Table 3A. Ambivalence model of latent vote for Carter curve (Hierarchical Logit)
49


Convention
All Academic Convention can solve the abstract management needs for any association's annual meeting.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 49 of 52   next   last

©2008 All Academic, Inc.