Elaboration and Rosenberg Summary Part Two

The thoeretical purpose of introducing an antecedent variable is the same as that of introducing an intervening variable, namely, to trace out a causal sequence.

ANTECEDENT VARIABLES is one which comes BEFORE the Independent Variable in the sequence.

Note that the ANTECEDENT VARIABLE is a true effective influence; it does not explain away the relationship between the Independent and Dependent Variables, but clarifies the influences which preceed the relationship.

So say you have discovered a causal relationship between Education (Independent Variable) and Political Knowledge (Dependent Variable). You have found evidence of causality and everyone agrees with you and all is well in the world. But, then you get bored and your 15 minutes of fame are nearing their end so you decide to get your ass back in gear and build upon your already solid relationship. What ever will you do? How about trying to find out what causes your Independent Variable (Education)? This is the question that ANTECEDENT VARIABLE analysis is designed to answer.

Now... yippee! You've found support for a causal relationship between Social Class (Independent Variable) and Education (Dependent Variable). In the relationship between Social Class and Education and Political Knowledge, Social Class is the ANTECEDENT VARIABLE. You are in the spotlight once more and are the talk of the town (for a little bit longer...)

In order to fully qualify as an ANTECEDENT VARIABLE, there are three statistical requirements which must be satisifed:
1. All three variables - antecedent, independent, and dependent - must be related. (That only makes sense! And is just a little bit obvious.)
2. When the ANTECEDENT VARIABLE is controlled, the relationship between the Independent and the Dependent Variable should not vanish. (Well, no shit! This relationship had already been established before we introduced the antecedent vairiable, it sure as hell better not disappear when we put things back the way they were!)
3. When the Independent Variable is controlled, the relationship between the Antecedent Variable and and the Dependent Variable should disappear. (This makes sense if you remember how that worked with the Intervening Variable. In this case, the Independent Variable is in the middle - like the Intervening Variable was - and just like before, it would be like taking the meat out from in between our slices of bread - no more sandwich!)


Rosenberg Chapter 4

SUPPRESSOR VARIABLES are nasty little buggers that can fool you if you don't look out for them and uncover their existence. They sneak into your study/research, doing their best to remain undetected, and work to "cover up" and/or "hide" things that directly affect the apparent relationship between your Independent and Dependent Variables.

Basically, you need to know that it is possible to be misled into thinking that there is seemingly no realtionship between two variables when there really is one. It may appear that there is not an inherent link between the variables, whereas, in fact, the fact that you cannot "see" the relationship (or that there there is an absence of any relationship) between the Independent and Dependent Variables may be due to the intrusion of a third variable.

Remember the overhead example with the study that wanted to measure Feelings of Estrangement in African-Americans as compared to Caucasion peoples? The simple analysis done in a Bivariate Table showed "no" difference between culture and estrangement, but then they controlled for education and then we could see that whites had a higher percent of cultural estrangement than african-americans when basic v. higher education was controlled for.

All in all, SUPPRESSOR VARIABLES are like the "opposite" of EXTRANEOUS VARIABLES. Remember, Extraneous Variables (storks and babies) made it look like two variables were related, but they weren't and when the Extraneous Variable was controlled for the relationship disappeared. Well, in this case, when the SUPPRESSOR VARIABLE is controlled for (tah-dah!) the relationship is revealed.


Now, if you thought the Suppressor Variables were menacing, wait until you hear about these DISTORTER VARIABLES. When you find one of these (hidden deep within your analysis, undetectible in Bivariate Tables just like the Suppressor Varaibles were) they reveal that the correct interpretation is (now watch this) precisely the reverse of that suggested by the original data. These rat bastards convert a positive relationship into a negative relationship.

Rosenberg (and I think Nigem, too) gave the example of a study done in which it was found that lower-class people are somewhat more likely to hold favorable attitudes towards civil rights. Researchers thought that could mean that lower-class people have a generally more "liberal" or "progressive" idoelogy (favoring civil rights). They then went on to speculate on the bearing of an underprivelaged social position on an ideology favoring equal rights. (Now for the big switcharoo...) The study was done in Washington D.C. (a city with a high African-American population) and when they examined the relationship of class to civil rights among Whites and African-Americans seperately they found (guess what?): the relationship is exactly opposite of that originally shown. In reality, among African-Americans, upper-class people are more likely than lower-class people to favor civil rights and the same is true for Whites.

There you have it - Rosenberg, Cliff's Notes Style

It's 3:08 am... do you know where your Methods Project is?

Elaboration Station (and Rosenberg Summary) Part One

Okay, so ELABORATION is so not even in my Babbie Book so I'm totally going on The Little Man's words and our good buddy Rosenberg.

Here are some highlights:

Chapter 2

The most important systematic way of examining the relationship between two variables is to introduce a third variable, called a test factor, into the analysis. This is what is meant by the process of elaboration.

Typically, one begins with a relationship between an Independent Variable and a Dependent Variable (then introduce test factor - aka explanatory variable). The purpose of introducing test factors is to aid in the meaningful interpretation of the relationship between two variables.

Stratify (need to use this word to look good) on the test factor. Stratification means that we have broken the test factor into its component categories. (ie. If we are using sex as our test factor... stratify it into Male and Female)

The process of stratification creates "contingency associations" and if the relationship between between your Independent Variable and Dependent Variable DISAPPEARS within each contingent association, then we can say that the relationship is due to the TEST FACTOR.

Is the relationship (that you have "discovered") between two variables REAL? You'd better make sure it's not SPURIOUS before you go telling everyone about it.

How do you decide what to use as a control variable, then? Through LOGIC of course!

Consider these:
EXTRANEOUS VARIABLES: Remember the storks and the babies? It turned out that their relationship wasn't causal at all. The EXTRANEOUS VARIABLE of residence in rural areas was making it look that way though. But nobody really thought about that because it was so far out and away from the "world of storks and babies" (hence it was/is EXTRANEOUS) that we ended up with the whole silly story about how storks deliver babies (just another example of how the crucial role of the woman in the whole delivery process gets passed over by the conclusions drawn by men long ago and nobody bothered - for a long time - to question the spuriousness of the stork/baby idea - never mind... thought I was in a WGST course for a moment).

We need to consider EXTRANEOUS VARIABLES in order to guard against misleading interpretations which might derive from the assumption that an inherent link exists between the two variables. They thought the storks and the babies were inherently linked. WRONG!!!

Here, the test factor leads to the Independent Variable and the test factor also leads to the Dependent Variable. THE CRUCIAL POINT IS: The Independent Variable DOES NOT lead to the Dependent Variable. The relationship is symmetrical; the variables are consequences of a common determinate.

Rosenberg goes on to discuss Component Variables, but since Nigem doesn't seem to care about them, neither do I right now........

Chapter 3

An INTERVENING VARIABLE is viewed as a consequence of the independent variable and as a determinant of the dependent variable. In other words, when you think you have found a causal relationship between an Independent Variable and a Dependent Variable, someone points out that you skipped a link in the "causal chain". Something occurs between your Independent and Dependent Variable that you missed. That "thing" is going to be our test variable (again).

Remember Nigem talking about how Durkheim was all about the way that Religion (Independent Variable) was causal to Suicide (Dependent Variable) and it turned out that (this was somewhat true, but it wasn't the whole truth and nothing but the truth) Integration was the meat missing from his Independent and Dependent Variable white bread sandwhich. Integration is the INTERVENING test factor (where's the beef? I want a last meal before I die!) VARIABLE.

So now we know that there are three parts to this deal (we got two pieces of bread and the meat - vegetarians insert meat substitute here) To establish a variable as INTERVENING the presence of three asymmetrical relationships must be present. You need your original relationship (I causes D, x causes y, I can't make no full-sized sandwich witout 2 slices of bread), and then you need the meat. But for the sandwich to be real, your top piece of bread need to be connected to the meat. If they're not (looking from my sandwich from the side from top bread to meat to lower bread) in the right order with my Bread leading directly to my Meat (relationship 2 where your original Independent Variable causes the test factor now making it a Dependent Variable) and then that meat needs to be followed directly by that other slice-o-bread (relationship 3 where the test factor now becomes the Independent Variable that causes your original Dependent Variable). INTERVENING VARIABLES are all about sandwhiches baby! that's why they're called Intervening Variables in the first place, don't you know? Because sandwiches are good for lunch and lunch INTERVENES in the middle of your day!

But don't forget, if you control for the Intervening Variable (or take the meat away) the original relationship disappears or decreases significantly. You no longer HAVE a sandwich, you've just got some seperate, unrelated pieces of bread.

(Now I need to take a quick break and listen to the Detroit Grand Pubahs' song "Sandwhiches" which you will certainly see me silently (yet somewhat visibly) dancing to in my desk tomorrow when I get to this portion of the exam.

I'll be back soon!

The night is young and looks to be very long....

Alright, so tomorrow the Little Man is going to have his last chance to play stump the monkeys (the monkeys being us) and I am not about to go down without a fight! (The French Final I have later in the day/evening looks to be another story altogether...)

So, we know we need to know all about both sides of the RESEARCH METHODS 328/527 and Table 1: ECONOMICALLY ACTIVE POPULATION BY STATUS AND SEX, 1976* handout.(Which, FYI, is the year I was born and therefore makes me "old" to some of you, I'm sure)

We also need to know ALL ABOUT the Process of Elaboration.

Other than the Multiple Choice, was there anything else?

I'm going to start putting some stuff up for my own studying's sake (even though it would most definitely have been better to have started this at the 11AM mark instead of the now 11PM time) But, better late than never. I was just about to make a comment on how "time" seems so different around finals, and I remembered a line from a song I am now going to listen to by ReHaB called Crazy People where this guy says:

Hey pal, got the time?
Does anybody really know?

Man, ya'll done lost ya'll mind.

Well, so has everybody else
We're just cuttin' in line

So, anyways, here we go (again)........

(Other than Crystal) Is anyone doing the Estimated Time Schedule and/or Budget for the Research Paper

I just need to get an idea of whether or not people are doing that part since we've never discussed anything like that in class, so I know whether or not I need to go back and make that up or not.

Thanks!

For Hope: COMPLETLY OT: Music

http://s18.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=0O7C5YENTPKYK0BAE5NUJX51E6
Who can resist bill cosby singing?

http://s48.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=12AX9YWPKYB3S1P10CAYT32859
Happy remixes, yay!

http://s49.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=3E64Q9NM1JY4E309P8ILJEKRLH
Slow and soothing and a little spacy.

http://s49.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=2D7RQ7USTJRKN20JTEB69P46MT
Happy food!

http://s37.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=1RKOW8E17CJ1N0PEZHTL30K7E0
I don't know - lush and dancy and happy? Sounds like somewhere warm.

http://s37.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=3UVGBX5X1RQGY0EPI35H5AFQ6C
If I close my eyes and listen loud enough, I'm pleasantly drunk, doing something fun - and I've forgotten all the work I have to do.

Right. Procrastination over.

Another handy reference for the Research Project...

In the back of the Babbie Bible (at least in the second edition) Appendix B is all about things to consider, beware of, make certain of, etc. in regards to a Research Report.

I just came across it and it has some useful hints and tips.

Just a friendly FYI!

exam time?

What time is the exam tomorrow? Thx.