FYI: Shafranek, R. M. (2019). Political considerations in nonpolitical decisions: A conjoint analysis of roommate choice. Political Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09554-9
Published by 劉正山,
這是一篇今日介紹的conjoint analysis，在政治行為研究的應用的實例。有興趣的同學可以直接拿來練習。
Download PDF資料和語法檔下載 ：
關於作者
Political Considerations in Nonpolitical Decisions: A Conjoint Analysis of Roommate Choice
Abstract
Research shows the increasing tendency of partisan considerations to influence decisions outside the context of politics, including residential choice. Scholars attribute this tendency to affective distaste for members of the other party. However, little work has investigated the relative influence of political and nonpolitical factors in these situations—and it has not sufficiently ruled out alternative explanations for these phenomena. Do people mainly choose to socially avoid members of the other party for political reasons, or is partisanship simply perceived to be correlated with relevant nonpolitical considerations? In some settings, political affiliation may serve primarily as a cue for other factors. As a result, studies that manipulate partisanship but fail to include other individuating information may exaggerate partisanship’s importance in these decisions. To address this shortcoming, I assess the impact of political and nonpolitical considerations on roommate selection via conjoint analysis. I find that partisanship strongly influences this social decision even in the presence of nonpolitical-but-politically-correlated individuating information. Partisan preferences are also moderated by roommates’ perceived levels of political interest. Finally, other social traits do matter, but how they matter depends on partisanship. Specifically, partisans report increased willingness to live with counter-stereotypic out-partisans. This suggests that partisan social divides may be more easily bridged by individuals with cross-cutting identities.
Keywords
Partisanship Affective polarization Homophily Conjoint
Notes
Acknowledgements
I thank John Bullock, Jamie Druckman, Laurel Harbridge-Yong, Chris Karpowitz, Teppei Yamamoto, members of the Druckman political science research lab, and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and advice. This research was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Northwestern University. Data and replication code for the analyses presented in this paper can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/GUATS6.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Sample Demographics
See Table 6
Table 6
Sample demographic characteristics
Main Results
Binary Choice Outcome
Instrument
1.
Counting this quarter, what is your year in school?
- First year
- Sophomore
- Junior
- Senior, graduating this year
- Senior, not graduating this year
- Other
2.
Please choose one or more races or ethnicities that you consider yourself to be (mark all that apply)
- White (1)
- Black or African-American (2)
- Hispanic/Latino(a) (3)
- Asian or Asian American (4)
- Middle Eastern or North African (5)
- American Indian or Alaskan Native (6)
- Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (7)
- Other (8)
3.
Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as a Democrat, Republican, Independent, or what?
- Democrat (1)
- Republican (2)
- Independent (3)
- Other party (please specify) (4)
4.
[strong/weak partisan or closer to which party]
5.
Some people seem to follow what’s going on in government and public affairs most of the time, whether there’s an election going on or not. Others aren’t that interested. Where you would place yourself on a scale from (1) you rarely follow what’s going on in government to (7) you follow what’s going on in government and public affairs almost all of the time?
6.
Please select your current age (in years).
7.
What is your gender?
- Male
- Female
- Other
8.
Which of the following terms best describes your religious beliefs?
- Catholic
- Mainline Protestant
- Evangelical Protestant
- Jewish
- Hindu
- Muslim
- Nonreligious
- Other
9.
Do you identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT)?
- Yes
- No
10.
For the next few minutes, imagine that you are filling out a survey that will be used to match you with a potential roommate.
Which of the following activities do you enjoy? Check all that apply.
- Theatre/performing arts
- Doing yoga
- Watching foreign films
- Cars and auto mechanics
- Visiting farmer’s markets
- Shopping
- Swimming
- Hunting and fishing
- Playing golf
- Watching sports
- Reading
- Playing video games
- Rock climbing
- Volunteering
- Going to coffee shops
11.
Out of the following options, what is your favorite genre of music?
- Hip-hop
- Country music
- Jazz
- Classic rock
- Electronic
- Heavy metal
- Pop
- Other
12.
On a scale from (1) not at all clean and tidy to (7) very clean and tidy, how would you rate your level of personal cleanliness?
13.
Which of the following statements best describes you?
- I like to go to parties on weekends.
- I like to stay in on weekends.
14.
Below is a list of personal values, i.e., things people might consider important in life. Out of these options, which is most important to you?
- Helping others around you
- Treating others fairly
- Following rules and behaving properly
- Respecting traditions
- Trying new things
- Making your own decisions
- Living in safe, secure surroundings
- Enjoying life and having fun
- Being successful and admired
15.
Generally speaking, around what time do you prefer to go to bed?
- 8 pm or earlier
- 9 pm
- 10 pm
- 11 pm
- Midnight
- 1 am
- 2 am or later
16.
[CONJOINT TASK] For the next few minutes, we are going to ask you to act as if you were trying to pick a roommate to live with.
We will describe to you several pairs of potential roommates. For each pair, please indicate your attitudes towards the two potential roommates and which one you would prefer to live with. Even if you aren’t entirely sure, please indicate which of the two you prefer.
[Tasks 1–10 here]
Which of these potential roommates would you rather live with?
- Roommate 1
- Roommate 2
On a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 indicates that you would definitely NOT live with this person, and 7 indicates you would definitely live with this person, where would you place…
17.
Which of the following characteristics are most important to you in a potential roommate? Please rank these items in order from most important (1) to least important (10). (To reorder the items in this list, click and drag.)
- Their sexual orientation
- Their hobbies
- Their taste in music
- Their cleanliness
- Their social preferences
- Their political views
- Their level of interest in politics
- Their religious views
- Their personal values
- Their race/ethnicity
- Their preferred bedtime
18.
Think about each of the following hobbies. Generally speaking, would you say that each hobby is more commonly associated with Democrats, more commonly associated with Republicans, or not more commonly associated with one party over the other?
- Theatre/performing arts
- Doing yoga
- Watching foreign films
- Cars and auto mechanics
- Visiting farmers markets
- Shopping
- Swimming
- Hunting and fishing
- Playing golf
- Watching sports
19.
Think about each of the following genres of music. Generally speaking, would you say that each genre is more commonly associated with Democrats, more commonly associated with Republicans, or not more commonly associated with one party over the other?
- Hip-hop
- Country music
- Jazz
- Classic rock
- Electronic
References
Abramowitz, A. I., & Webster, S. W. (2016). The rise of negative partisanship and the nationalization of U.S. elections in the 21st century. Electoral Studies,
41, 12–22.
Abramowitz, A. I., & Webster, S. W. (2018). Negative partisanship: Why Americans dislike parties but behave like rabid partisans. Political Psychology,
39(S1), 119–135.
Abrams, S. J., & Fiorina, M. P. (2012). ‘The Big Sort’ that wasn’t: A skeptical reexamination. PS: Political Science and Politics,
45(2), 203–210.
Ahler, D. J., & Sood, G. (2018). The parties in our heads: Misperceptions about party composition and their consequences. Journal of Politics,
80(3), 964–981.
Arceneaux, K., & Johnson, M. (2013). Changing minds or changing channels? Partisan news in an age of choice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Bansak, K., Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D. J., & Yamamoto, T. (2017). Beyond the breaking point? Survey satisficing in conjoint experiments. Presented at the annual summer meeting of the society for political methodology, Madison, WI.
Bansak, K., Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D. J., & Yamamoto, T. (2018). The number of choice tasks and survey satisficing in conjoint experiments. Political Analysis,
26(1), 112–119.
Barber, B. R. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bishop, B. (2008). The big sort: Why the clustering of like-minded America is tearing us apart. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.
Cho, W. K. T., Gimpel, J. G., & Hui, I. S. (2013). Voter migration and the geographic sorting of the American electorate. Annals of the Association of American Geographers,
103(4), 856–870.
Dafoe, A., Zhang, B., & Caughey, D. (2016). Confounding in survey experiments: Diagnostics and solutions. Working paper. Retrieved from http://www.allandafoe.com/confounding.
Deichert, M. A. (2016). Partisan identity and the cultural stereotypes of political parties. Presented at the annual meeting of the midwest political science association, Chicago, IL.
Druckman, J. N., & Kam, C. D. (2011). Students as experimental participants. In Cambridge handbook of experimental political science (pp. 41–57).
Druckman, J. N., Gubitz, S. R., Levendusky, M. S., & Lloyd, A. M. (Forthcoming). How incivility on partisan media (de-)polarizes the electorate. Journal of Politics.
Ferro, S. (2014). The percentage of adult americans living with roommates has been surging. Business Insider. Retrieved November 3, 2014, from http://www.businessinsider.com/americans-with-roommates-are-skyrocketing-2014-11.
Fowler, J. H., & Kam, C. D. (2007). Beyond the self: Social identity, altruism, and political participation. Journal of Politics,
69(3), 813–827.
Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., & Dowling, C. M. (2012). Disagreement and the avoidance of political discussion: Aggregate relationships and differences across personality traits. American Journal of Political Science,
56(4), 849–874.
Gift, K., & Gift, T. (2015). Does politics influence hiring? Evidence from a randomized experiment. Political Behavior,
37(3), 653–675.
Gimpel, J. G., & Hui, I. (2015). Seeking politically compatible neighbors? The role of neighborhood partisan composition in residential sorting. Political Geography,
48, 130–142.
Gimpel, J. G., & Hui, I. (2017). Inadvertent and intentional partisan residential sorting. The Annals of Regional Science,
58(3), 441–468.
Gordon, S. C. (2009). Assessing partisan bias in federal corruption prosecutions. American Political Science Review,
103(4), 534–554.
Guryan, J., & Charles, K. K. (2013). Taste-based or statistical discrimination: The economics of discrimination returns to its roots. The Economic Journal,
123(572), F417–F432.
Hainmueller, J., Hangartner, D., & Yamamoto, T. (2015). Validating vignette and conjoint survey experiments against real-world behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
112(8), 2395–2400.
Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D. J., & Yamamoto, T. (2014). Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis,
22, 1–30.
Hewstone, M. (1994). Revision and change of stereotypic beliefs: In search of the elusive subtyping model. European Review of Social Psychology,
5(1), 69–109.
Hill, C. T., & Stull, D. E. (1981). Sex differences in effects of social and value similarity in same-sex friendship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
41(3), 488–502.
Howat, A. J. N.d. Political engagement and perceived value conflict. Working paper.
Huber, G., & Malhotra, N. (2017). Political homophily in social relationships: Evidence from online dating behavior. The Journal of Politics,
79(1), 269–283.
Huckfeldt, R., Mendez, J. M., & Osborn, T. (2004). Disagreement, ambivalence, and engagement: The political consequences of heterogeneous networks. Political Psychology,
25(1), 65–95.
Hui, I. (2013). Who is your preferred neighbor? Partisan residential preferences and neighborhood satisfaction. American Politics Research,
41(6), 997–1021.
Hutter, R. R. C., & Crisp, R. J. (2005). The composition of category conjunctions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
31(5), 647–657.
Inbar, Y., & Lammers, J. (2012). Political diversity in social and personality psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science,
7(5), 496–503.
Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science,
59(3), 690–707.
Jacoby, W. G. (2014). Is there a culture war? Conflicting value structures in American public opinion. American Political Science Review,
108(4), 754–771.
Jennings, M. K., & Niemi, R. G. (1981). Generations and politics: A panel study of young adults and their parents. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Joiner, T. E. (1994). The interplay of similarity and self-verification in relationship formation. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal,
22(2), 195–200.
Kelly, J. T. (2018). Fitting the stereotype: Partisan/ideological group stereotypes and social identity. Presented at the annual meeting of the southern political science association, New Orleans, LA.
Klar, S., & Krupnikov, Y. (2016). Independent politics: How American disdain for parties leads to political inaction. Cambridge University Press.
Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y., & Ryan, J. B. (2018). Affective polarization or partisan disdain?: Untangling a dislike for the opposing party from a dislike of partisanship. Public Opinion Quarterly,
82(2), 379–390.
Kunda, Z., & Oleson, K. C. (1995). Maintaining stereotypes in the face of disconfirmation: Constructing grounds for subtyping deviants. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
68(4), 565.
Laar, V., Colette, S. L., Sinclair, S., & Sidanius, J. (2005). The effect of university roommate contact on ethnic attitudes and behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
41(4), 329–345.
Levendusky, M. (2018). Americans, not partisans: Can priming american national identity reduce affective polarization? Journal of Politics,
80(1), 59–70.
Levitan, L. C., & Visser, P. S. (2009). Social network composition and attitude strength: Exploring the dynamics within newly formed social networks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
45(5), 1057–1067.
Marques, J. M., & Paez, D. (1994). The ‘black sheep effect’: Social categorization, rejection of ingroup deviates, and perception of group variability. European Review of Social Psychology,
5(1), 37–68.
McConnell, C., Margalit, Y., Malhotra, N., & Levendusky, M. (2018). The economic consequences of partisanship in a polarized era. American Journal of Political Science,
62(1), 5–18.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology,
27, 415–444.
Motyl, M. (2014). ‘If he wins, I’m moving to Canada’: Ideological migration threats following the 2012 U.S. presidential election. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy,
14(1), 123–136.
Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Oishi, S., Trawalter, S., & Nosek, B. A. (2014). How ideological migration geographically segregates groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
51, 1–14.
Mummolo, J., & Nall, C. (2017). Why partisans do not sort: The constraints on political segregation. The Journal of Politics,
79(1), 45–59.
Munro, G. D., Lasane, T. P., & Leary, S. P. (2010). Political partisan prejudice: Selective distortion and weighting of evaluative categories in college admissions applications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
40(9), 2434–2462.
Mutz, D. C., & Mondak, J. J. (2006). The workplace as a context for cross-cutting political discourse. Journal of Politics,
68(1), 140–156.
Nicholson, S. P., Coe, C. M., Emory, J., & Song, A. V. (2016). The politics of beauty: The effects of partisan bias on physical attractiveness. Political Behavior,
38(4), 883–898.
Pew Research Center. (2014). Political polarization in the American public. https://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/
Prati, F., Crisp, R. J., & Rubini, M. (2015). Counter-stereotypes reduce emotional intergroup bias by eliciting surprise in the face of unexpected category combinations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
61, 31–43.
Prati, F., Moscatelli, S., Pratto, F., & Rubini, M. (2018). Multiple and counterstereotypic categorization of immigrants: The moderating role of political orientation on interventions to reduce prejudice. Political Psychology,
39(4), 829–848.
Rogers, K. Roommates wanted. Trump supporters need not apply. The New York Times. 10 February 2017.
Rom, M. C., & Musgrave, P. (2014). Political bias in grading: Identifying problems, proposing solutions. Journal of Political Science Education,
10(2), 136–154.
Rothschild, J. E., Howat, A. J., Shafranek, R. M., & Busby, E. C. (2019). Pigeonholing partisans: Stereotypes of party supporters and partisan polarization. Political Behavior,
41(2), 423–443.
Sacerdote, B. (2001). Peer effects with random assignment: Results for dartmouth roommates. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
116(2), 681–704.
Schofield, J. W., Hausmann, L. R. M., Ye, F., & Woods, R. L. (2010). Intergroup friendships on campus: Predicting close and casual friendships between White and African American first-year college students. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,
13(5), 585–602.
Sears, D. O. (1985). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influence of a narrow data base on social psychology’s view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51(3), 515–530.
Shafranek, R. M. Forthcoming. Political consequences of partisan prejudice. Political Psychology.
Smith, J. A., McPherson, M., & Smith-Lovin, L. (2014). Social distance in the United States: Sex, race, religion, age, and education homophily among confidants, 1985 to 2004. American Sociological Review,
79(3), 432–456.
Stroud, N. J. (2008). Media use and political predispositions: Revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Political Behavior,
30(3), 341–366.
Vasiljevic, M., & Crisp, R. J. (2013). Tolerance by surprise: Evidence for a generalized reduction in prejudice and increased egalitarianism through novel category combination. PLoS ONE,
8(3), e57106.
Lelkes, Y., & Westwood, S. J. (2017). The limits of partisan prejudice. Journal of Politics,
79(2), 485–501.
Copyright information
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-019-09554-9