Upload
ratana
View
85
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Authoritarianism and anomia reconsidered: applying cross-lagged autoregressive & latent growth curve models. Dipl.-Soz. Elmar Schlüter Philipps-University Marburg DFG-Research Training School Group-focused enmity contact: [email protected] Dr. Eldad Davidov Prof. Dr. Peter Schmidt - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Authoritarianism and anomia reconsidered: applying cross-lagged autoregressive & latent growth curve models
Dipl.-Soz. Elmar SchlüterPhilipps-University MarburgDFG-Research Training School Group-focused enmitycontact: [email protected]
Dr. Eldad DavidovProf. Dr. Peter SchmidtJustus-Liebig-Universität GiessenDepartment of Social Sciences
1. Background
• aim: illustrating the complimentary use of autoregressive & latent growth models
• both methodologies offer unique perspectives on substantive theoretical problems
• latent growth models relatively seldom used within sociology and political sciences
• anomia & authoritarianism as example
2. Plan of the presentation
• theoretical background: interrelationship of anomia & authoritarianism
• cross-lagged autoregressive & latent growth models: review of basic assumptions
• sample & indicators: Group-focused Enmity panel 2002-2004
• preliminary results
• discussion: pros & cons of cross-lagged autoregressive and latent growth models
3. The interrelationship of anomia and authoritarianism
• Anomia (Srole 1956) - perceived breakdown of the social order - feeling of being helpless, alone and powerless
• Authoritarianism (Adorno et al. 1950) - deep-rooted intraindividual characteristic- reflects conformity with the ingroup, submission to
ingroup leaders & aggressive stances towards outgroups
(1) Srole (1956, p. 716; see Scheepers et al. 1992):• anomic individuals choose authoritarian stances in order to
recover orientation
(2) Adorno et al. (1950), McClosky & Schaar (1965)• authoritarian individuals are hampered to interact effectively• less opportunities to escape from social isolation• resulting in anomia
AuthoritarianismAnomia
Anomia Authoritarianism
Anomia Authoritarianism
(3) reciprocal relationship: not necessarily implausible
Research questions for longitudinal analysis: a)• are authoritarian attitudes stable over time?• are anomic attitudes stable over time?• does anomia cause authoritarianism, does authoritarianism cause anomia or do we get evidence for both processes?
b) • if we get evidence for individual change of authoritarian and/ or anomic attitudes: is there an increase or a decrease?• do we get evidence for individual differences concerning such a development?• is there a relationship between the initial level of authoritarianism/ anomia and its dynamic?
4.a Cross-lagged autoregressive modelsautoregressive model • each variable X at t2 function of its lagged measure at t1 and residual• stability coefficients indicate degree of stability of interindividual
differences
cross-lagged autoregressive model (Finkel 1995)• cross-construct regression weights: X predicting Y, controlling for former values of Y
Xt1
Yt1
Xt2
Yt2
res2
res1
a
b
c
d
11
1
Intercept
Xt3Xt1Xt2
res1 res
2res3
4.b latent growth curve models• for analysing individual change processes using single/ multiple indicators
• assumption: a latent trajectory characterizing the sample (or subgroups) can be found • individual change as function of intercept and slope factors for each time period
• individual change as function of intercept and slope factors for each time period
1 F
Slope
0
5.a Data
Sample:• Group-focused enmity panel 2002-2004 (Heitmeyer et al. 2002,
2003; 2004 forthcomig)
• CATI-survey
• german-speaking persons aged 16 and over in households with telephone
• current analyses: respondents with german citizenship only
GFE-Survey 2002 GFE-Survey 2003 GFE-Survey 2004Nmax 2364 1175 824
5.b Indicators
Var Item
ATHRT_1 „One of the most important characteristics one should have is obedience toward the authorities”
ATHRT_2 „We should be grateful for the leading figures who tell us what to do“
4-point-scale: 1 „exactly true“; 2 „ moderately true“; 3 „ barely true“; 4 „ not at all true“; recoded: higher values indicate higher degrees of authoritarianism
Authoritarianism:
Variable Item
ANM_1 “Everything has become so much in disarray that one does not know whereone actually stands“
ANM_2 „Matters have become so difficult these days that one does not know what isgoing on“
1 „exactly true“; 2 „ moderately true“; 3 „ barely true“; 4 „ not at all true“; recoded: higher values indicate higher degrees of anomia
Anomia:
Anomia 2002-2004:
Time Variable N M SD Min. Min.
2002 ATHRT_1 2706 2.68 .939 1 4
ATHRT_2 2698 2.13 .856 1 4
2003 ATHRT_1 1166 2.70 .914 1 4
ATHRT_2 1168 2.20 .835 1 4
2004ATHRT_1 817 2.69 .918 1 4
ATHRT_2 821 2.20 .845 1 4
Authoritarianism 2002-2004:
6. Results - descriptives
Time Variable N M SD Min. Max.
2002ANM_1 2705 2.57 .905 1 4
ANM_2 2705 2.53 .898 1 4
2003ANM_1 1166 2.78 .900 1 4
ANM_2 1173 2.73 .900 1 4
2004ANM_1 825 2.90 .882 1 4
ANM_2 824 2.87 .874 1 4
6. Results• used software: Amos 5.0• missings: pairwise• all factor loadings > .60• measurement model showed good fit:
1.0,012,9821,127
pcloseRMSEAAGFI2 / df
• all factors loadings and stability coefficients intertemporal invariant (p = .49)
6.a Cross-lagged autoregressive model: unconditional bivariate analysis anomia and authoritarianismstandardized coefficients only; not shown: observed indicators + measurement errors; residual correlations; insignificant paths
80%83%
.15.12
.64
51%
.39
.91.84
.12
ATHRT_2002 ATHRT _2003 ATHRT _2004
56%
.67
.15
83%
ANM_2002 ANM_2003 ANM_2004
.15
80%
2 / df AGFI RMSEA pclose
2,664 .958 .045 .754
6.b Latent growth model I: unconditional univariate analysis authoritarianism
.
2 / df CFI RMSEA pclose
3.312 .996 .045 .373
.91
ATHRT_2002 ATHRT_2003 ATHRT_2004
.93
InterceptM =2.675 (.033)S = .459 (.070)
.95
0
89%
.09
SlopeM =.023 (.026)S = .035 (.082)
89% 90%
.15
• sig. mean of intercept authoritarianism
• sig. variance of intercept indicates individual differences
• insignificant mean of slope indicates: no change in authoritarian attitudes over the three time points
6.c Latent growth model II: univariate analysis anomia
2 / df CFI RMSEA pclose
.808 .999 .000 .992
.79.84
ANM_2002 ANM_2003 ANM_2004
.81
InterceptM = 2.581 (.030)S = .404 (.027)
0
70%
.37.18
72% 71%
SlopeM = .166 (.015)S = .020 (.010)
• sig. mean of intercept indicates starting point of anomic attitudes at 2.58 points
• sig. variance of intercept indicates individ. differences at starting point
• sig. mean of slope indicates an increase of .16 over the period of study
• sig. variance of slope indicates individ. differences concerning the growth process
.95
.29.82
.81.83
70%
6.d Latent growth model III: bivariate analysis anomia and authoritarianism
1.99
.54
89%88% 89%
71%71%
ATHRT_2002 ATHRT_2004
ANM_2002 ANM_2003 ANM_2004
SlopeAnmM = .206 (.031)S = .023 (.012)
InterceptAnmM = 2.58 (.031)S = .41 (.027)
InterceptAthrtM = 2.69 (.28)S = .49 (.03)
ATHRT_2003
2 / df CFI RMSEA pclose
1.497 .99 .025 1.0
0
.14
7. Conclusion/ Discussion
1. Cross-lagged autoregressive analysis:
- authoritarian attitudes more stable than anomic attitudes
- tendency to support the authoritarianism-causes-anomia model
2. Latent growth curve analysis:
- linear increase for anomic attitudes
- no sig. growth for authoritarian attitudes
- pos. cov. between intercept of authoritarian and anomic attitudes