2005 SRC Summer Internship Symposium

1
2005 SRC Summer Internship Symposium
Date Tuesday, July 26, 2005 Time 1200
200 p.m. Place ISR Building, Room 6050
2
Welcome

• SRC Diversity Initiative
• Overall purpose of the program is to provide
  students with hands-on experience in survey
  research
• Expected Outcomes
• Todays Agenda

3
Selection Process

• Selection Committee (PAC staff)
• 6 interns in 2005 (3 graduates, 3 undergraduates)
• Matched students with potential sponsors based on
  the students interest and educational/professiona
  l experience, and skill set.
• Emily Beam (Economic Behavior-Richard Curtin)
• Anna Camacho (Life Course Development-Toni
  Antonucci)
• Jenna Keedy (Family and Demography-Linda
  Young-DeMarco)
• Rebekah King (Social Environment and Health-David
  Williams)
• Rachel Orlowski (Social Environment and
  Health-Amiram Vinokur)
• Diaan Van der Westhuizen (Survey Methodology-Bob
  Groves Urban Environment-Bob Marans)
• Selection of Summer Institute Coursework

4
Jenna KeedyFamily and Demography
InternLinda Young-DeMarco

• Religiosity and Education

5

• Sponsor Project Religiosity and Education Using
  Monitoring the Future Data
• Replication Project Sacerdote Glaeser

6
Sponsor Project Religiosity and
EducationMonitoring the Future Survey

• Monitoring the Future Survey (MTF) 1975-present
• Annual administration to approximately 15,000
  high school seniors
• Nationally representative sample of schools
• Each school is sampled for 2 years, ½ of schools
  replaced each year
• Demographic, drug use, and lifestyle questions
• 6 Forms
• Sub-sample follow-ups
• The original cohort is now age mid-40s

7
Sponsor Project Religiosity and
EducationThornton, Kimball, Young-DeMarco,
Mitchell Project

• Major Question
• What is the effect of education on religiosity?
• Different Different Different
• College Curriculum Thoughts,
• Major Values, Ideas
• Religiosity
• Theories, literature, data from authors
  ongoing paper

8
Sponsor Project Religiosity and
EducationQuestions from MTF Survey

• 6 total questions about some aspect of religion
  on MTF survey
• 2 key questions addressing religiosity
• How often do you attend religious services?
• How important is religion in your life?
• College major reported at three times
• Follow-up 1 (1-2 years post HS)
• Follow-up 2 (3-4 years post HS)
• Follow-up 3 (5-6 years post HS)

9
Sponsor Project Religiosity and
EducationAnalysis

• Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression (and
  LISREL), logistic regression, and multinomial
  logit regression run on STATA 8.
• Creation/formatting of tables for use in analysis
  and publication.
• Learned how to interpret coefficients, standard
  errors, and p-values.

10
Interpretation Example

• Question How important is religion in your life?
• Not important
• A little important
• Pretty important
• Very important
• OLS Regression
• Humanities
• Social Science

11

• Logistic Regression
• No College
• Other

12
Replication ProjectEducation and
ReligionSacerdote Glaeser (2001)National
Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 8080.

• Introduction to research process
• Literature and theory
• Data analysis STATA 8
• Interpretations Conclusions

13
Background

• Sacerdote Glaeser
• General Social Survey (GSS) 1972-1988
• Collected every two years
• Cross-sectional 1,500 random respondents
• Main Finding Education Increases ? Attendance
  Increases
• Explanation?
• Education Increases Social Returns (Attendance)
• Less Social Individuals
• Replication
• Monitoring the Future (MTF) public data available
  from Inter-University Consortium for Political
  and Social Research (ICPSR)
• Cross-sectional Year 2003, N15,200
• Base year only (high school administration)

14
Variables

• Religious Attendance
• Sacerdote Glaeser Never, More than once a week
  (Collapsed)
• Replication
• Never, Rarely, Once/twice a month, About once a
  week or more
• Education
• Sacerdote Glaeser Years of Education Completed
• Replication Expected Years of Education
  Completed
• How likely is it that you will do each of the
  following things after high school?
• A. Attend a technical or vocational school
• B. Graduate from a two-year college program
• C. Graduate from a four-year college program
• D. Attend graduate or professional school
  after college
• 1Definitely Wont 2Probably Wont
• 3Probably Will 4Definitely Will

15
Future Educational Plans

• Highest expected level of education

16
Variables Continued

• Social Measure
• Sacerdote Glaeser
• Number of group memberships
• Replication
• During a typical week, how many evenings do you
  go out for fun and recreation?
• 1Less than one Collapsed
• 2One 1Less than one
• 3Two 2One-Two
• 4Three 3Three-Five
• 5Four or Five 4Six-Seven
• 6Six or Seven

17
ReplicationEducational Plans and Attendance

• Sacerdote Glaeser Education Increases ?
  Attendance Increases
• Replication

18
ReplicationEducational Plans and Social

• Sacerdote Glaeser Education Increases ? Social
  Increases
• Replication

19
Replication Social and Attendance

• Sacerdote Glaeser Social Membership ?
  Attendance
• Replication

20
Replication Less Social People

• Sacerdote Glaeser
• Less social people (membership in no social
  groups)
• Education ? Attendance More Weakly Related
• Replication
• All Coefficient.090 (p.000, r2.075)

21
Replication Less Social People
22
Conclusions

• Education ? Social Activity ? Religious
  Attendance
• Informal Social Activity Formal Social Activity
• Future Research

23
Thank you!

• Linda Young-DeMarco
• and everyone in Family and Demography
• George Myers and Ana Ormsby

24
Rebekah KingSocial Environment and Health YES
Health Study
25
Introduction

• SRC Internship
• YES Health Study Background
• Daily Dairy Stress Findings

26
SRC Summer Internship

• Social Environment and Health
• Sponsor David Williams Ph.D.
• South Africa Stress and Health Study/Ypsilanti
  Everyday Stress and Health Study

27
Ypsilanti Everyday Stress and Health Study (YES
Health)

• Exploratory/Pilot Study
• Specific Aims
• Examine relationship between unfair treatment,
  unachievable life goals, and psychological
  stress.
• Explain the impact of race, socio-economic status
  (SES), and neighborhood on health.
• Provide more information on stressors experienced
  by non-majority, non-middle class respondents.
• Findings used to refine methods for future
  studies of unfair treatment and mental health.

28
YES Health cont.

• Sample drawn from 4 distinct (racially
  homogenous, economically diverse) Ypsilanti
  neighborhoods
• Low Income White
• Low Income Black
• Moderate Income White
• Moderate Income Black

29
Stress, Race, Neighborhood Context Findings from
YES Health Study
30
The Stress Continuum
Source Wheaton, B. in Horowitz , A and Scheid,
T. (eds.) Handbook for the Study of Mental
Health Social Contexts. Theories and Systems.
Cambridge University Press, 1999.
31
YES Health Measurement of Stress

• Importance of varied measurement well documented
  (Wheaton,1999).
• Types of stressors vary along continuum (e.g.
  trauma, life events daily hassles, neighborhood
  stress, exposure to violence).
• Stressor measured with face-to-face in depth
  interviews, and brief telephone interviews.

32
Telephone Interviews (IWs)

• Modified Daily Diary
• Telephone IWs used in place of actual respondent
  diary
• Rationale
• Validation of other measurements
• Alternate Conceptualization of Stress
• Cortisol Sample (Evening)
• Current Information on Medications

33
Telephone Interviews cont.

• Three brief interviews (2 weekdays, and 1
  weekend day) during evening completed between
  second and third in-person interviews.
• Ascertained information on perceived
  stressfulness of day.
• Measured tensions/difficulties getting along
  with others, minor annoyance, hassles,
  irritations, and most stressful experience of the
  day.

34
Methods

• Transcribed open ended responses to
• most stressful experience/event today
• Coded line-by-line
• A priori
• Inductive
• Descriptive Analyses

35
Measure Most stressful experience of the day

• Considering all of your experiences today, what
  event or experience was the most stressful for
  you? This could be a problem involving your
  family, something involving work, or something as
  minor as getting caught in a traffic jam. Can
  you tell me what happened and what was stressful
  about it?

36
Sample Responses and Corresponding Codes
37
Research Questions

• What stressful experiences are being reported?
  (Domains)
• Are there any differences in reports of stressful
  experiences by race, neighborhood, and other
  demographic factors?

38
Respondents

• N 88
• Race 53 White, 47 Black
• Sex 49 Male, 51 Female
• Age Min. 20, Max 55, Mean 40
• SES 49 Low SES, 51 Mid SES
• Relationship Status 68 Married/ Romantically
  Involved, 31 No Relationship

39
Daily Stressful Events and Experiences

• 66 of respondents reported a stressful
  event/experience over all three interviews.
• 35 respondents never reported a stressful
  experience.
• No significant differences in having/reporting a
  stress event across race, SES, sex, block sample,
  or relationship status.

40
Domains for Stressful Events

• Family
• Friends
• Work
• School
• Personal Appearance
• Neighborhood
• Health
• Keeping Household
• Police/Legal Matter
• Spiritual or Religious Life

• Children
• Spouse/Intimate Partner
• Money/Finances
• Other
• Traffic/Driving
• Car Problems/ Transportation
• Decision-Making
• Disappointment
• Loss

41
Stress Domains at Interview 1


42
Stress Domains at Interview 2
43
Stress Domains at Interview 3
44
Differences in Work Related Stress by Gender

• Men were more likely than women to report their
  most stressful event or experience of the day
  related to work.
• p.009

45
Difference in Work Related Stress by
Neighborhood/SES

• Mid-income respondents were about 12 more likely
  to report work related stress than low income
  respondents.
• Relationship hold across neighborhoods.
  Mid-income blacks and whites report more work
  related stress than low income blacks and whites.

RESPONDENTS
WORK RELATED STRESS
46
Stress Related to Child(ren)

• Women (33) more likely than men (13) to report
  stress related to children. (p.002)
• Married or romantically involved respondents were
  30 more likely to report stress relating to
  children more than those not in a relationship.
  (p.03)
• Almost twice as many whites reported stress
  related to children as did blacks. (not
  significant p.061)
• Relationship holds across neighborhoods, where
  both low and mid SES whites reported more stress
  related to their children than low and mid SES
  blacks.

47
Other Findings

• No neighborhood related stressful experiences
  reported.
• Very little reported money/finances related
  stress.
• No significant differences across race,
  neighborhood or SES for new categories/domains
  (traffic/driving and decision-making stress).

48
Summary

• On a given day the most stressful event or
  experience falls within 4 domains (work,
  children, health, and traffic).
• Differences exist in stressful experiences with
  respect to neighborhood, race, SES, and gender.

49
Conclusion

• Findings limited due to sample size and
  exploratory nature of study.
• Most stressful experience were primarily related
  to work and the home (children).
• Existing domains or categories of stress do not
  reflect all experiences reported on a daily
  basis.
• Findings provide insight on others stress
  categories or domains to be included in future
  studies.

50
Future Directions

• Findings can be linked to larger YES Health Data
  set to assess relationship between daily diary
  stress and other stressors.
• Consistency in methodology and usefulness in
  validating daily hassles findings.
• Further study is needed to better understand the
  role neighborhood context in daily dairy stress.

51
Acknowledgements

• SEH David Williams, John Sonnega, Car Nosel
• George Myers
• Ana Ormsby
• SRC Summer Interns
• ISR/SRC

52
Anna Camacho

• Type-A Personality as a Predictor of Social
  Relationships and Well-Being

Life Course Development Project
53
Background

• Characteristics of Type-A personality
• Speed
• Involvement in multiple tasks
• Increased rate of completion
• Physical and mental alertness
• Competitiveness
• Intense drive
• Eagerness to compete
• Desire for recognition

54
Background

• Previous research indicates that Type-A
  personality may have a negative impact on social
  relationships and physical well-being
• Type-A personality may contribute to coronary
  heart disease
• Type-A personality might have a negative effect
  on the quality of social relationships

55
Research Questions

• Does Type-A vary by age and race?
• How does Type-A relate to quality of
  relationships?
• What are the implications of Type-A for
  well-being?

56
Hypothesis

• Type-A personality will
• Negatively affect social relationships
• Decrease well-being

57
Method

• Social Relations and Mental Health Across the
  Lifespan Study (1993)
• 1,498 participants from the Detroit metro area
• 70 White, 27 Black
• 41 men, 59 women
• Ages 13-93, m49.05
• Years of education m12.59, SD2.73

58
Measures

• Demographics
• Race
• Age
• Social Relationships
• Positive / Negative relationship with mother,
  father, spouse, child
• Positive measures (5 items)
• I feel my ___ supports me.
• Negative measures (2 items)
• My ___ makes too many demands on me.

59
Measures

• Bortner Type-A
• Speed
• Examples
• Never late v. Casual about appointments
• Always rushed v. Never feels rushed
• Competitiveness
• Examples
• Very competitive v. Not competitive
• Ambitious v. Satisfied with the ways things are

a.60
a.72
a.70
60
Measures

• Well-being
• Depression (20 item CESD)
• Self-Esteem (10 item Radloff scale)
• Health
• Satisfaction with life

61
Analysis Plan

• Regression Analyses 3 sets
• Speed and competitiveness as a function of age
  and race
• Relationship quality as a function of speed and
  competitiveness
• Well-being as a function of speed and
  competitiveness

62
Do speed and competitiveness vary by age and race?
Speed
Competitiveness
ß
ß
Age -.188 -.217 Race
-.199 .038 Gender .053
-.067 R2 .07 .07
Plt.05 Plt.01 Plt.001
63
How do speed and competitiveness relate to
quality of relationships?
Mom-
Dad-
Spouse-
Child-
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
ß
ß
ß
ß
Age -.231 -.254 -.072
-.389 Race -.032 -.028
.177 .024 Speed .091
.103 .139 .093 Competitivene
ss -.051 -.063 -.121
-.093
R2 .06 .07 .05 .16
Plt.05 Plt.01 Plt.001
64
What are the implications of speed and
competitiveness for well-being?
Depression
Self-Esteem
Health
ß
ß
ß
Age -.105 .081
-.254 Race .118
.077 -.119 Speed .047 -.019
.011 Competitiveness -.143
.219 .078 R2 .04
.05 .08
Plt.05 Plt.01 Plt.001
65
Summary of Findings

• Speed and competitiveness decrease as people age
• Speed levels are higher in White respondents
• Speed predicts increased negative relationships
• Competitiveness predicts a decrease in some
  negative relationships
• Competitiveness predicts healthier well-being

66
Implications

• Coping abilities and interaction strategies
  change as people age
• Variations in speed by race are revealing but
  require more research
• Certain aspects of Type-A personality appear to
  be beneficial while others are not
• Multiple dimensions of Type-A

67
Future Directions

• Further examine the relationship between Type-A
  personality and well-being among racial
  minorities
• Observational studies among Type-A and Type-B
  people
• New measure for Type-A personality that asks
  about other characteristics
• Hostility (Cook-Medley)
• Anger (State-Trait)

68
Acknowledgements

• Dr. Toni Antonucci
• Dr. Kira Birditt
• LCD Staff
• George Myers / Ana Ormsby
• SRC LCD Interns

69
Speed

• Never late
• Always rushed
• Impatient when waiting
• Tries to do many things at once
• Emphatic in speed
• Fast doing things
• Expresses feelings

• v. Casual about appointments
• v. Never feels rushed
• v. Can wait patiently
• v. Takes things one at a time
• v. Slow, deliberate speech
• v. Slow doing things
• v. Sits on feelings

70
Competitiveness

• Very competitive
• Hard-driving
• Ambitious

• v. Not competitive
• v. Easy-going
• v. Satisfied with the way things are

71
The Impossible DreamThe Quest for 100
Response Rate

• Rachel Orlowski

Social Environment and Health Program
72
(No Transcript)
73
Research Description

• Studying United States Air Force Personnel
• Women Veterans Project Operation Iraqi Freedom
• Work, Family Stress Deployment Resilience
  Retention
• Principle Investigators Amiram Vinokur Penny
  Pierce
• Funded by Tri-Service Nursing Research Program
• Examining the effects of
• Deployment, demographic, background variables
• Military, job, family experiences
• Physical mental health
• Deployment readiness
• Job family stressors
• Retention

74
Ideal Procedure

• Receive contact information from Department of
  Defense Manpower Data Center
• Mail informational letter to Public Affairs
  offices on all Air Force bases
• Mail announcement packet to participant
• Receive postcard back from participant
• Call participant at preferred time
• Complete phone interview
• Mail self-administered questionnaire
• Receive questionnaire back from participant

75
Increasing Response Rate

• Remind participants of confidentiality
  anonymity
• Indicate Air Force University of Michigan
  affiliation on all forms of communication
• Hand-write signatures on all mailings
• Hand-write addresses affix postage stamps on
  announcements
• Establish rapport when interviewing participants
• Inform participants that they will receive a
  report of our findings
• Give participants a pin with the announcement
• Give participants a pen with the questionnaire

76
Difficulties with Contact Information

• Problems
• Department of Defense Manpower Data Center
  neglects to give complete information
• Participant has moved
• Participant is deployed
• Solutions
• Ask phone informant for information or to forward
  mail
• Email contact information request
• Search the internet
• Search credit reporting agencies
• Contact base locators

77
Difficulties with Calling

• Problems
• Participant never answers the phone
• Always reaching an answering machine
• Solutions
• Call three times per each of the four time slots
• Leave two messages on answering machine spaced
  one week apart
• Leave messages with informants
• Mail phone interview, if exhausted other options

78
Difficulties with Interviewing

• Problems
• Called at a bad time for participant
• Participant is unsure of study
• Participant is unwilling to participate
• Solutions
• Inform participant that we can call back later
• Offer participant the option of mailing phone
  interview
• Inform participant of credibility
• Re-mail announcement packet
• Suggest that participant talk with
• Public Affairs Officer
• Their supervisor
• Our supervisor
• Conversion

79
Difficulties with Questionnaire

• Problems
• Incorrect mailing information
• Participant believes survey is too time-consuming
• Participant is no longer interested in
  participating
• Questionnaire never returned
• Solutions
• Ask participant for current information when
  interviewing
• Ask participant for contact information of
  relative or friend
• Suggest that participant completes questionnaire
  in increments
• Conversion
• Nag procedure

80
Nag Procedure

• Similar procedure when mailed phone interview is
  not returned
• After one month, send email postcard
• After an additional week, begin calling
• Two attempts then one message
• Wait one week then repeat nag calling procedure
• Eventually, offer online survey option

81
Women Veterans Project NumbersDecember, 2004 -
July 21, 2005 / Sample 2346
82
Work, Family Stress NumbersJune, 2005 - July
21, 2005 / Sample 3891
83
Differences between Decades
Health Psychosocial Readjustment of Gulf War
Veteran Women had a 87 response rate!

• Nature of the Wars
• Completion of Combat vs. Real Time Study
• One vs. Several Deployments
• Sense of Safety vs. Fear of Terrorism
• Final Death Tolls vs. Continuing Casualties

• Evolving Technology
• Answering Machines
• Caller I.D.
• Cell Phones
• Phone Privacy Monitors
• Spam Blockers
• Benefit Email Internet Surveys

84
(No Transcript)
85
THANK YOU!!!

• SRC Summer Internship Program
• George Myers, Ana Ormsby, the Interns
• SEH Staff
• Amiram Vinokur, Penny Pierce, Susan Clemmer,
• Lil Berlin, Elli Georgal, Lisa
  Lewandowski-Romps
• SRC Summer Institute
• Fred Conrad Norbert Schwarz

86
Emily Beam
Survey of Consumer Attitudes

• Determinants of Stock Market Participation

87
Determinants of Stock Market Participation

• What affect do demographics and attitudes have on
  whether and how much an individual invests in the
  stock market?
• Indices for knowledge, risk tolerance, portfolio
  diversity
• Regression analysis on probability of owning
  stock and amount of stockholdings as a proportion
  of income

88
Survey of Consumer Attitudes

• Ongoing since 1946
• Included in Leading Indicator Composite Index,
  U.S. Department of Commerce
• Calculates Index of Consumer Expectations, Index
  of Consumer Sentiment
• Monthly survey of 500 interviews, approximately
  50 questions
• Additional one-time or recurring rider sections

89
Demographic and Behavioral Factors

• Impact of age, education, income on stock market
  participation and stock holdings
• Whether an individual seeks professional
  investment advice
• Whether an individual has no financial
  investments, some investments, or holds stock

90
Stock Market Participation
overall 62
Age
Income Tercile
Education
91
Stockholding as a Percent of Income - by Income
Tercile
92
Stockholding as a Percent of Income, by Age
93
Investment attitudes

• Analyzing data from April 2005 section, written
  by participants in Survey Methodology Program
  student practicum
• 28 statements on attitudes, additional questions
  about advice, types of investments held, who
  manages finances, etc.
• 10 questions determined to be relevant measures
  of knowledge, portfolio diversity, and risk
  tolerance

94
Attitude Indices

• Knowledge Index 4 questions
• e.g. Only stockholders make money
• Portfolio Diversity Index 3 questions
• e.g. Choosing to invest in both small and large
  companies at the same time is wise.
• Risk Tolerance Index 3 questions
• e.g. You should always put your money into the
  safest investment you can find.

95
Example Omitted Statement

• I avoid the stock market because it is
  confusing
• Seems straightforward, but
• 38 of those with stocks agreed with this
  statement.
• 27 of those with no financial investments agreed.

96
Knowledge Index
97
Determinants of Stock Ownership

• Logistic regression on whether an individual
  holds stock
• Age, income, years of education, whether sought
  professional advice, and three indices included

98
Determinants of Stock Ownership(dependent
variable 0,1)
yellow if p-value lt 0.05
weighted N 478
99
Determinants of Stock Ownership

• Age, income, education matter
• education drops out with the addition of indices
• Professional advice highly significant
• increases r-squared by 0.05
• Portfolio diversity, risk tolerance matter
• Indices explain an additional 5 of variance

100
Stockholdings as Percent of Income

• Tobit model to account for those who hold no
  stock while measuring stockholdings
• Stockholdings divided by income regressed on same
  variables as logit, but with education dummy
  variables
• Dummy for graduating from high school, holding
  bachelors degree, holding advanced degree

101
Stockholdings as Percent of Income
yellow if p-value lt 0.05
weighted N 442
102
Stockholdings as Percent of Income

• Results similar to logit model
• Age, education, professional advice are
  significant
• Holding a college degree matters
• increases ownership more than advanced degree
• Portfolio diversity, risk tolerance have a
  significant and positive effect on stockholding

103
Conclusions

• More specifically tailored questions needed about
  views on stock market
• Demographic factors are highly predictive overall
• Despite limited data, indices still contribute to
  explaining both whether one owns stock and how
  much

104
Thank you!

• Richard Curtin, Rebecca McBee-Bonello, and
  everyone else at the Survey of Consumer Attitudes
• George Myers and Ana Ormsby
• Summer interns
• Institute for Social Research and Survey Research
  Center

105
Acknowledgements

• SRC Directors, SSAC, and SRC Diversity Committee
• Selection Committee Sheila Deskins, Maggie
  Levenstein, George Myers, Ana Ormsby, Vivienne
  Outlaw, and Kenneth Szmigiel
• Interns and Sponsors
• Emily Beam (Economic Behavior-Richard Curtin)
• Anna Camacho (Life Course Development-Toni
  Antonucci)
• Jenna Keedy (Family and Demography-Linda
  Young-DeMarco)
• Rebekah King (Social Environment and Health-David
  Williams)
• Rachel Orlowski (Social Environment and
  Health-Amiram Vinokur)
• Diaan Van der Westhuizen (Survey Methodology-Bob
  Groves and Urban Environment-Bob Marans)
• Summer Institute Faculty and Staff (esp. Jill
  Esau and Andrea Johns)
• SRC Computing Department ISR/SRC Human
  Resources Office

106
The Survey Research Center is an equal
opportunity employer who values diversity in the
workplace.