Mplus resource

Here are a couple of online resources in relation to the statistical program--Mplus.


1. UCLA: Multilevel modeling in Mplus (with handouts and video demos)
2. UCLA: Introduction to Mplus
3. UTexas: Mplus introduction
4. UCLA: Mplus class note-Path Analysis
5. UCLA: Mplus annotated output (Multinomial regression)
6. UCLA: Mplus data analysis example: logistic regression

Also read the online material developed by a faculty member at UNC about the concepts and assumptions about path analysis.

Mediation effect

Many of the studies in social sciences involve a mediating variable, which filters the effect of the original independent variable on the dependent variable. There are many ways of testing mediation. I just want to highlight some wonderful websites and resources that deal with this topic.

Calculation for the Sobel test. The website contains explanations of concepts and easy-to-use calculators for indirect effect.

Dr. Andrew Hayes at the Ohio State University also developed a website and SPSS macros for the test of indirect effect. Please click here for the SPSS syntax to activate the macro. There is also a PDF file that explains the steps after the activation of macro.

In fact, the software Mplus has proved to be very handy in testing indirect effect. By specifying the "ind" command, Mplus shows not only the effect size, but also the test score and significance of the coefficient.

The website developed by Dr. David Kenny is also very helpful. He is one of the author in the famous piece about mediation [The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations, (Baron & Kenny, 1986)].

Nano Song

just found this on YouTube today. interesting song about nano.



see ACS Nanotation for more information about the video contest.

Information about European Countries

Here are some reliable "facts" about European countries.

GENERAL INFORMATION

1. BBC established a nice database about background characteristics, political information, and even media systems in the world. Please see Country Profiles at BBC.


2. EUROPA is the portal site of the European Union (http://europa.eu). It provides up-to-date coverage of European Union affairs and essential information on European integration. It also has statistics and public opinion info. It's worth checking out! There is a specific section that devotes to some statistics in relation to science and technology in Europe.

3. Country Profiles by the Library of Congress.

4. UN Data--A world of information.

5. US Department of State, background notes.

MEDIA & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

6. European Journalism Center. The European Journalism Centre (EJC) is an independent, international, non-profit institute dedicated to the highest standards in journalism, primarily through the further training of journalists and media professionals. It has "media landscape" for all European countries.

7. EB68.2 E-Communications Household Survey (pdf), with summary sheet for individual 27 countries.

8. EB67.2 Scientific research in the media, accessible at European Union Public Opinion.

DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE

9. Science of Latvia.

10. Science and Society in Europe.

Social amplification of risk--Burns et al 1993

Incorporating Structural Models into Research on the Social Amplification of Risk: Implications for Theory Construction and Decision Making

This study empirically tests the framework of social amplification of risk, which argues that "social and economic impacts of an adverse event are determined not only by the direct biological and physical consequences of the event, but by the interaction of powerful psychological, cultural, social, and institutional processes that amplify or attenuate public response to the event" (Burns et al., p612).

In this study, the authors examined the causal relationship between "risk signals," "media coverage," "public response," and some physical consequences of adverse events.

108 hazards were identified and evaluated by experts to determine their political and economic implications. Public responses were measured by the level of political involvement, worry, and risk-reducing action induced by the hazards. Although measured at the individual level, these public responses variables were then aggregated to represent macro-level preferences. Information about media coverage was also collected to reflect the number of stories, duration of coverage, and issue half-life.

The most important finding of this study rests with the fact that both "casualties" and "property damage," indicators of the consequence of hazards, showed only marginally significant effect on the societal impact of the issues. It is, instead, the media coverage of and public reactions to the issues that matter.

However, I have several questions after reading this article.
1. What is the subject of amplification? Is it the social and political impact of the issue or the perceived risk of the issue? For example, some people may not care as much about what the risks are going to do to other people, or the whole society, as to themselves. Employing an "objective" measure of the impact of hazards does not hit the target idea. It is also difficult for me to draw a linkage between public reaction measures with the "impact" variable formed by the opinions of the experts.

2. Based on my first question, the causal order of their model (with "societal impact" being the final dependent variable ) may be open for adjustment. Can public worry and willingness to participate politically serve as the final outcome and be predicted by the "perceived" societal impact of hazards?

3. Showing a strong relationship between, for example, media coverage and societal impact does not necessarily mean that these hazards were "amplified." To what baseline does this amplification or attenuation compare? I think this is the most critical issue that scholars in this line of research should address.

Modernization and human development

The thesis of the third chapter of this book is the relationship between modernization and value change. In other words, do people living in countries with different levels of development also possess different values?

The authors, in particular, examine two sets of values--traditional vs secular and survival vs self-expression. On the other hand, modernization is operationalized as the proportion of labor forces in the industry sector and service sector.

The results confirmed two relationships. Materialism, characterized by the dominance of the industry sector, was associated with secular values; that is, less deferred to authority and religious guidance. Quite differently, post-materialism, characterized as the dominance of the service sector, was associated with self-expression values (i.e., more trust in people and higher demand in political participation).

Further analysis showed that these values were also predicted by the country's colonial legacy. For example, what values people hold depend on whether they were subject to the impact of communist, Confucianism, Catholic, or Protestant.

So, does the tradition of a country shape public values more strongly than colonial background? For instance, does an Islamic living in the middle east possess values more similar to another Islamic residing in other parts of the world than a Catholic in the same area? Their research suggests that the effect of a country overrides that of the political background. In other words, a Chinese in the US will hold values much more similar with an American in the US than another Chinese in Hong Kong.

Sjoberg (1998). Workd Views, Political Attitudes and Risk Perception

This study was published at Risk: Health, Safety & Environment in 1998 and is the first article I read about the limited power of cultural theory in predicting technological risk attitudes.

Basically, this study, with 141 subjects from a church organization in California, aimed to replicate the Dake's piece published in 1990 (Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk). Dake aruged in his study that "cultural bias and social relations" (including hierarchy, individualism, and egalitarianism) better explained people's risk perception than other political ideology and personality reasons.

However, Sjoberg criticized Dake's ideology measure for being too heterogeneous and having low reliability, compared to Rothman and Lichter's measure, in that it included many non-business and -economics related items.

Variables tested in this study, thus, included political attitudes, trust, affect, and Dake's scales, with dependent variables being 36 societal concerns and 51 risk ratings. Sjorboerg found that although trust was pervasively correlated with concerns, it explained only 2.6% of the variance of risks. The same situation is applicable to Dake's scales of world views. In addition, affect was correlated with risks and concerns well.


The more surprising finding pertains to the fact that Dake's scale were not technology related, leading Sjorberg to conclude that "Cultural Theory simply is wrong (p.149)" [in its use of explaining risks].

Related reading:

Peters, E., & Slovic, P. (1996). The Role of Affect and Worldviews as Orienting Dispositions in the Perception and Acceptance of Nuclear Power Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26(16), 1427-1453.