All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

A Change in Attitudes Toward Muslims? A Bayesian Investigation of Pre and Post 9/11 Public Opinion
Unformatted Document Text:  2000 25% of applicable cases were observed; Applicable to 2799 cases 0% 25% 50% mean = 2.78 sd = 0.83 Frequency 2001 70% of applicable cases were observed; Applicable to 2041 cases 0% 25% 50% Frequency mean = 2.67 sd = 0.80 2002 36% of applicable cases were observed; Applicable to 2002 cases 0% 25% 50% Frequency mean = 2.60 sd = 0.83 2005 42% of applicable cases were observed; Applicable to 2000 cases 0% 25% 50% Frequency mean = 2.71 sd = 0.79 Respondents' Attitudes toward Muslim 1: Very unfavorable 2: mostly unfavorable 3: mostly favorable 4: very favorable Figure 1: Summary statistics of respondents’ attitudes toward Muslim of 4 differentyears. The distribution of each of the categories of the 4 years is almost identical.Most respondents show that Muslims are ‘most favorable’ to them. The mean of 2.6of 2002, the smallest among the 4 years, indicates that respondents of this year favorMuslim less than any other year. Nonetheless, the standard deviations show thatthey are statistically indifferent. like this is to postulate the existence of an underlying latent (unobserved) variable z associated with each response κ of y (McCullagh 1980; Johnson and Albert 1999; Agresti 2002) such that: y i =                 1 if z i < c 1 2 if z i ∈ (c 1 , c 2 ) 3 if z i ∈ (c 2 , c 3 ) 4 if z i > c 3 z i = Xβ + i −∞ < c 1 ≤ c 2 ≤ c 3 ≡ ∞ where c κ represents the cutpoints between two response categories κ’s and is a random variable drawn from a standard logistic distribution that i ∼ logistic(0, 1). When z i falls between the cutpoints c κ and c κ+1 , the observation is classified into category κ. We assign empirical weak informative priors of t(mean = 0, scale = 2.5, df = 30) on coefficients of predictors as we rescale all the predictors (Gelman, 11

Authors: Kalkan, Kerem. and Su, Yu-Sung.
first   previous   Page 11 of 25   next   last



background image
2000
25% of applicable cases were observed;
Applicable to 2799 cases
0%
25%
50%
mean = 2.78
sd = 0.83
Frequency
2001
70% of applicable cases were observed;
Applicable to 2041 cases
0%
25%
50%
Frequency
mean = 2.67
sd = 0.80
2002
36% of applicable cases were observed;
Applicable to 2002 cases
0%
25%
50%
Frequency
mean = 2.60
sd = 0.83
2005
42% of applicable cases were observed;
Applicable to 2000 cases
0%
25%
50%
Frequency
mean = 2.71
sd = 0.79
Respondents' Attitudes toward Muslim
1: Very unfavorable
2: mostly unfavorable
3: mostly favorable
4: very favorable
Figure 1: Summary statistics of respondents’ attitudes toward Muslim of 4 different
years. The distribution of each of the categories of the 4 years is almost identical.
Most respondents show that Muslims are ‘most favorable’ to them. The mean of 2.6
of 2002, the smallest among the 4 years, indicates that respondents of this year favor
Muslim less than any other year. Nonetheless, the standard deviations show that
they are statistically indifferent.
like this is to postulate the existence of an underlying latent (unobserved) variable
z associated with each response κ of y (McCullagh 1980; Johnson and Albert 1999;
Agresti 2002) such that:
y
i
=

1 if z
i
< c
1
2 if z
i
∈ (c
1
, c
2
)
3 if z
i
∈ (c
2
, c
3
)
4 if z
i
> c
3
z
i
= Xβ +
i
−∞ < c
1
≤ c
2
≤ c
3
≡ ∞
where c
κ
represents the cutpoints between two response categories κ’s and
is a
random variable drawn from a standard logistic distribution that
i
∼ logistic(0, 1).
When z
i
falls between the cutpoints c
κ
and c
κ+1
, the observation is classified into
category κ. We assign empirical weak informative priors of t(mean = 0, scale =
2.5, df = 30) on coefficients of predictors as we rescale all the predictors (Gelman,


Convention
Submission, Review, and Scheduling! All Academic Convention can help with all of your abstract management needs and many more. Contact us today for a quote!
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 11 of 25   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.