Measuring Latent Values: the challenge of fitting CFA models in multiple time-spatial contexts using cross-sectional data

Transcription

1 Title and Outline Measuring Latent Values: the challenge of fitting CFA models in multiple time-spatial contexts using cross-sectional data Part 1 - Overview of my PhD on individual values and voter choice. Part 2 - Presenting current ongoing work on the CFA latent values model. Part 3 - Outlining data linkage strategy issues, compromises and next steps. Thomas Loughran, PhD Student, Institute for Social Change, University of Manchester. 1

2 Part I - What are values? Values are trans-situational underlying constructs that people use to structure attitudes and ideology and to guide decision making. Converse (1964) Values are a kind of glue that hold together many ideological and attitudinal positions. Tetlock (1986) Values are competing conceptions of the good. Rokeach (1974) Values can be distinguished between the Terminal (Desirable end states personal and social) and the Instrumental (Modes of conduct moral and competence). Key defining points are that values are a)abstract b)transcend attitudes towards objects and situations and c)guide and determine the mechanisms of decision making. 2

3 Part I Values, Politics and Voting Easton (1953) Politics is the authoritative allocation of values. Values based appeals are increasingly prevalent among political actors. Political choice rooted in socialisation and life long learning theory. Provide a more nuanced, multi-dimensional approach to structures underlying political behaviour. (Barnea and Schwartz 1998). Three broad schools Postmaterialism (Inglehart), Social Psychology (Schwartz), Political Psychology (Feldman). Values can provide key incites into the underlying structure and substantive importance of political cultural change. 3

4 Part I - Research Questions 1. What role do political identities have in mediating the influence of individual values on voter choice decisions? 2. To what extent does the strength and structure of the relationship between values and voting vary according to national political context? 3. Is the relationship between values and voter choice subject to change over time? Focus on the relationship between value change and voter choice over a 30 year period ( ). 4

5 Part II - Values-voting path model Political Identity Individual Values (Weak Direct relationship) Vote Choice Cross National analysis of the 4 Waves of the European Values Survey (1981, 1990, 1999, 2008). Structural Equation Path modelling (Mediator/Moderator model). Disqualifies the Schwartz Values battery which is considered the gold standard approach and is contained in the European Social Survey. 5

6 Part II Issues with Value measurement Individual values are a conceptually fuzzy latent concept; difficult to capture meaningfully in surveys. Creates a problem of validity. There is a lack of standard measures. Wide diversity of indicators that are labelled a value. Different research traditions talk passed each other. Main debate surrounds whether values are a latent construct or can (and should) be measured directly. 6

7 Part II - Constructing Latent Values Step 1 Use the pooled 2008 wave to develop SEM measurement model. Firstly through EFA analysisdeveloping into a full SEM-CFA measurement model. Step 2 Apply the final CFA model from 2008 to the pooled 1990 data. Step 3 Apply the same model to each country in the analysis independently. Step 4-Final stage is to test for Cross-National Measurement Invariance using SEM Multi-group analysis. 7

8 Part III - CFA Factor Model Traditionalism and Conformity using 10 point moral values likert scale (1=Never Justified to 10 = Always justified). Individualism 10 point scale from Pro-Anti Individualism. Authority Factor Categorical indicators. 8

9 Part II CFA Specification Moral Traditionalism Indicators relate to Homosexuality, Abortion and Divorce. Conformity Indicators relate to Using Soft Drugs, Paying to Avoid Tax and Avoiding Transport Fares. Individualism Indicators relate to Individual v State responsibility, Competition, State ownership of firms. Authoritarian Indicators relate to attitudes to bringing up children (Obedience, Independence, Imagination). Datasets based on 13 Countries in 1981 EVS at each crosssection. Model estimated in MPLUS, using WMSLV estimator. 9

10 Part II 2008 Descriptives Continous Variables N=19894 Valid Missing Mean Median SD Min Max Skew Kurt Range CON1 (False Benefits) CON2 (Cheating ON Tax) CON3 (Joyriding) CON4 (Taking Soft Drugs) CON5 (Avoid tax) CON6 (Avoid Fare) TRAD1 (Homosexuality) TRAD2 (Abortion) TRAD8 (Divorce) TRAD9 (Euthanasia) TRAD10 (Suicide) IND1 (Responsibility) IND2 (Unemployed Rights) IND3 (Competition) IND4 (Freedom v State) EG1 (Equalise Incomes) Binary Variables Valid Missing % Yes % No AUTH3 (Obedience) AUTH5 (Independence) AUTH6 (Imagination)

11 Part II 1990 Descriptives Continous Variables N= Valid Missing Mean Median SD Min Max Skew Kurt Range CON1 (False Benefits) CON2 (Cheating ON Tax) CON3 (Joyriding) CON4 (taking Soft Drugs) CON5 (Keeping money) CON6 (Avoid Fare) TRAD1 (Homosexuality) TRAD2 (Abortion) TRAD8 (Divorce) TRAD9 (Euthanasia) TRAD10 (Suicide) IND1 (Responsibility) IND2 (Unemployed Rights) IND3 (Competition) IND4 (Freedom v State) EG1 (Equalise Incomes) Binary Variables Valid Missing % Yes % No AUTH3 (Obedience) AUTH5 (Independence) AUTH6 (Imagination)

12 Part II Pooled CFA Models Pooled Models N Traditionalism TRAD1 (Homosexuality) TRAD2 (Abortion) TRAD8 (Divorce) Conformity CON4 (Soft Drugs) CON6 (Avoid Fare) Individualism IND1 (Responsibility) IND3 (Competition) IND4 (State vs Freedom) Authoritarianism AUTH3 (Obedience) AUTH5 (Independence) AUTH6 (Imagination) CONF with TRAD AUTH with TRAD CONF with INDIV CONF with AUTH AUTH3 with AUTH AUTH5 with AUTH AUTH6 with CON TRAD 8 with TRAD X2 (DF) DF CFI TLI RMSEA

13 2008 Models Int Bel Den Fra Ger Ice Ire Ita Mal Neth Nor Spa Swe UK N Traditionalism TRAD1 (Homosexuality) N/A TRAD2 (Abortion) TRAD8 (Divorce) Conformity CON4 (Soft Drugs) CON6 (Avoid Fare) Individualism IND1 (Responsibility) IND3 (Competition) IND4 (State vs Freedom) Authoritarianism AUTH3 (Obedience) N/S N/S AUTH5 (Independence) AUTH6 (Imagination) N/A CONF with TRAD AUTH with TRAD CONF with INDIV CONF with AUTH AUTH3 with AUTH N/A N/A AUTH5 with AUTH N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A AUTH6 with CON N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A X2 (DF) DF CFI TLI RMSEA

14 1990 Cross National Models Int Bel Den Fra Ger Ice Ire Ita Mal Neth Nor Spa Swe UK N Traditionalism TRAD1 (Homosexuality) TRAD2 (Abortion) N/A TRAD8 (Divorce) Conformity CON4 (Soft Drugs) CON6 (Avoid Fare) Individualism IND1 (Responsibility) IND3 (Competition) IND4 (State vs Freedom) Authoritarianism AUTH3 (Obedience) N/S (sur0.522 N/A AUTH5 (Independence) N/A AUTH6 (Imagination) N/A CONF with TRAD AUTH with TRAD N/A CONF with INDIV CONF with AUTH N/A AUTH3 with AUTH N/A N/A AUTH5 with AUTH N/A N/A N/A N/A AUTH6 with CON N/A TRAD8 with TRAD N/A X DF CFI TLI ESRC Data Linkage Conference Exeter th June RMSEA

15 Part III-Issues Issues related to CFA Model These models are relatively robust when applied on a country by country single N basis. Factor loadings support CFA structure and model fits do not vary that much. Problem with Multi-group models fitting very badly. Next step is Measurement Invariance. Configural Invariance can be established, but work on establishing Metric and Scaler invariance has not been promising. Scope of Research may be overly ambitious in terms of overtime and cross-national aspect. Have to accept that I am deliberately using non-ideal data when there is a gold standard measure that could be used. 15

16 Part III - Data Linking MLM Strategy Take this measurement model and use it to directly model voting in the each of the Countries in 1990 EVS. This will increase the number of observations and allow the development of Multi-Level Models that use Comparative Manifesto s data as a measure of context. The aim is to ascertain which contextual factor contribute to the priming of values. Develop models that include measures of the effective number of parties and the polarisation of the party structure as the main level 2 co-variates. 16

17 Conclusions The model suggests that the EVS can be used to develop multidimensional value measures. The 4/5 factor solution that is generated appears relatively consistent with existing empirical practice and can generate politically relevant hypotheses. (Early direct models of voting have been promising). However, failure to establish wider Measurement Invariance influences the external validity of the study and impacts on the research questions that can be addressed. The latent approach appears valid but future empirical chapters will have to be wary of these limitations to potential findings. 17