Why Do Some Groups of People Feel Discriminated Again

• Journal List
• PLoS One
• PMC5570361

PLoS Ane. 2017; 12(viii): e0183356.

The prevalence of discrimination across racial groups in contemporary America: Results from a nationally representative sample of adults

Brian B. Boutwell, Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing,^{1, ii, *} Joseph L. Nedelec, Conceptualization, Formal analysis,³ Bo Winegard, Writing – review & editing,^iv Todd Shackelford, Writing – review & editing,⁵ Kevin Yard. Beaver, Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing,⁶ Michael Vaughn, Writing – review & editing,¹ J. C. Barnes, Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing,³ and John P. Wright, Writing – review & editing ³

Brian B. Boutwell

¹ School of Social Work, College for Public Health & Social Justice, Saint Louis University, 3550 Lindell Boulevard, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America

² Department of Epidemiology, Higher for Public Health & Social Justice, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri, U.s.a. of America

Joseph Fifty. Nedelec

³ School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Academy of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, United states of america of America

Bo Winegard

^iv Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, United States of America

Todd Shackelford

⁵ Department of Psychology, Oakland Academy, Rochester, MI, U.s.a. of America

Kevin M. Beaver

⁶ College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, United States of America

Michael Vaughn

¹ Schoolhouse of Social Work, College for Public Wellness & Social Justice, Saint Louis University, 3550 Lindell Boulevard, St. Louis, Missouri, U.s.

J. C. Barnes

ⁱⁱⁱ Schoolhouse of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, The states of America

John P. Wright

³ School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Academy of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, U.s.

Ian D. Stephen, Editor

Received 2017 Feb 17; Accustomed 2017 Aug 2.

Data Availability Statement

The data may be obtained by anyone who is interested via one of two mechanisms. First, a portion of the data is publicly available online. 2d, full access to the data may be obtained via the custodians of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Developed Health. The authors of this manuscript are non legally permitted to dispute any data straight to interested parties. Even so, all interested researchers can visit the website for the Add Health Study (http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth) for information on downloading datasets. Public versions (which represent a subset of the larger, restricted dataset) of the data are available both via the Add Wellness website (see higher up) and also via ICPSR (http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/21600?archive=ICPSR&q=21600). The restricted versions of the data (which include full samples of siblings, biomarkers, etc.) can be obtained by contacting the custodians of the data and past submitting the appropriate forms (found here: http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/contracts/new-add-wellness-restricted-use-data-contract). For the electric current study, the co-author responsible for data analysis, Dr. Joe Nedelec has the appropriate licensure for accessing the full information.

Abstract

A large body of social science research is devoted to understanding the causes and correlates of discrimination. Comparatively less attempt has been aimed at providing a general prevalence approximate of discrimination using a nationally representative sample. The current written report is intended to offer such an estimate using a large sample of American respondents (Northward = 14,793) while besides exploring perceptions regarding why respondents felt they were discriminated against. The results provide a broad approximate of self-reported discrimination experiences—an effect that was just reported by about one-quarter of all sample members—across racial and indigenous categories.

Introduction

Personal experiences of bigotry and bias have been the focus of much social scientific discipline research. [1–iii] Sociologists have explored the adverse consequences of discrimination [iii–v]; psychologists have examined the mental processes that underpin conscious and unconscious biases [6]; neuroscientists accept examined the neurobiological underpinnings of discrimination [seven–9]; and evolutionary theorists accept explored the various ways that in-group/out-group biases emerged across the history of our species. [10] In many respects, researchers already possess a wealth of knowledge concerning the origins and consequences of discrimination and bias. [11]

What likewise should not be lost in discussion of discrimination is the growing push to implement social policy aimed at reducing the occurrence of discriminatory practices. Mandatory multifariousness trainings in professional person settings, for instance, are intended to reduce bias in the workplace by increasing the awareness of employees regarding the challenges facing minority group members. [12] Indeed, the implementation of certain policies is rooted in the assumption that discrimination and biases are, at to the lowest degree to some appreciable amount, present in modernistic guild.

Even so, estimates of the prevalence of perceived discrimination remains rare (see [13–fourteen]). At least one prior study by Kessler and colleagues [15], however, using measures of perceived discrimination in a large American sample, reported that approximately 33% of respondents reported some course of bigotry (see also, Gibbons et al. [4]). The electric current written report seeks to build on this research past estimating the prevalence of discrimination experiences amid a large, nationally representative sample of adults from the United states of america. Additionally, the analysis accost the perceived reasons for reported discrimination experiences.

Methods

Data

Information are derived from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health). [sixteen] Details about the sampling process are described elsewhere. [16] In brief, the Add together Wellness is a nationally representative study of American youth who were followed into adulthood and who completed interviews at four time points. The first moving ridge of information drove, Wave ane, occurred during the 1994–1995 school yr. Wave two was conducted nearly one-and-a-half years later. After about v years, when the respondents were entering young adulthood, the third wave of data collection occurred. Terminal, during 2007 and 2008 the fourth moving ridge of data collection was completed. At Wave 4, the respondents were approximately 29 years of age, on boilerplate (age range was 25 to 34 years). The Add Health study boasts strong respondent retentiveness, with about 80% of Wave 1 respondents re-interviewed at Wave 4. [16] The electric current study employs data from Waves 1 and 4, which resulted in an analytical sample of N = xiv,793. In accord with Add Health guidelines [17], sampling weights for cross-sectional analyses were employed, as we will describe our belittling variables from the Wave 4 interview and just demographic details will exist drawn from Moving ridge 1. Note that because the result of involvement (i.e., perceived discrimination) was derived from Moving ridge 4, all estimates were weighted co-ordinate to information available in the Add together Wellness sampling weight variable GSWGT4_2. Moreover, the clustering of respondents inside schools at Moving ridge one (PSUSCID) and the stratification by region (REGION) that was used to define the sampling frame were taken into account when calculating standard errors (encounter [17]).

Measures

Perceived discrimination

The current written report employed two measures of perceived discrimination derived from a single question asked during the Wave iv interview (see too [eighteen–19]; also as [15] and the piece of work of Pang [20] who analyzed discrimination measures from Wave I of the Add Health in lodge to predict diverse outcomes amongst the participants). The first measure reflects responses to the following question: "In your day to twenty-four hour period life, how ofttimes do you feel you accept been treated with less respect or courtesy than other people?" The responses to this question were coded such that 0 = never, 1 = rarely, ii = sometimes, and 3 = frequently. Annotation that in comparison to Everett et al. [xix] who restrict their analysis to the dichotomous measure of perceived bigotry in the Add Health data, our analyses employed both the dichotomous version and the categorical version of the measure out. Additionally, while Everett et al.'due south [xix] analyses were focused on the bear upon of discrimination experiences on mental wellness our analyses are centered primarily on a general assessment of the overall incidence of such experiences.

The 2d measure out is a dichotomized version of the higher up mensurate, coded such that 0 = never/rarely and 1 = sometimes/frequently. The descriptive statistics for the variables included in the current report are presented in Tabular array one.

Table 1

Descriptive statistics of the study variables and racial categories for all respondents in the analytical sample.

	N	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	SD
Written report Variables
Discrimination experiences	14,793	0	3	.99	.83
Ever experience discrimination	14,793	0	1	.25	.43
Reason for bigotry a	three,613	ane	9	nine	—
Age	fourteen,783	25	34	28.95	1.82
Sex (0 = female, 1 = male)	14,793	0	i	.51	.50
Racial Categories	Frequency	Proportion
White	9,707	66.31
Black	2,221	fifteen.17
Hispanic	i,578	10.78
American Indian	126	.86
Asian	445	3.04
Mixed Race	561	3.83
N (not-missing on racial category)	14,638	100

Reason for discrimination

All respondents who indicated they were discriminated confronting—specifically, those who responded with sometimes or often to the perceived discrimination measure described above—were asked the following question: "What practice you call back was the chief reason for these experiences?" Respondents were immune to choose i response from 11 categories. For the present analysis, these responses were recoded into nine mutually exclusive categories capturing the following options: 1) race/ancestry/peel color; two) gender; iii) historic period; 4) organized religion; 5) height or weight; half-dozen) sexual orientation; seven) education or income; eight) physical disability; and ix) other. The post-obit categories from the original questionnaire were collapsed into ane category for the analysis: race; ancestry or national origin; and shade of skin color. Additionally, considering this question was only asked of respondents who reported prior discrimination experiences, the built-in skip pattern resulted in a large number of cases scored as missing (legitimate skip).

Respondent race

Because a race variable is not available from the Wave iv interviews, nosotros apply the racial category reported by the respondent during the Wave 1 interview. Wave 1 race—rather than, say, Moving ridge three race—was used to preserve case counts. The logic is that (nearly) all Wave four respondents appeared in the Wave ane sample, only not all would have been interviewed at Wave 3 due to differential patterns of temporary compunction. Respondents were asked to bespeak their race from among the post-obit categories: White; Black or African American; Hispanic; American Indian or Native American; and Asian or Pacific Islander. Respondents were provided the opportunity to select more than i race, and those who did were asked a follow-up question regarding which category best described their racial background. In the current study, those respondents who indicated more than one race were coded every bit "mixed race".

Demographic variables

To provide information on the analytical sample as a whole, two additional demographic variables are included. First, age is a continuous measure out created past subtracting the year of the respondents' birth (obtained from Moving ridge 1) from the year of the interview at Wave 4. 2nd, sexual activity was dichotomously coded based on the self-reported sex activity of the respondent at Moving ridge 4 (0 = female person and ane = male).

Analytical plan

Our exploratory report included 3 basic steps. Commencement, summary statistics of the study variables and racial categories were produced. 2d, we examined the relative proportions of the ii discrimination experience measures across each racial category. Finally, we assessed the distribution of reported reasons for discrimination across the racial categories. In order to examine potential bivariate associations, the adjusted F statistic (design-based F) was employed equally it corrects for a complex sample design such as that used in the Add Health. [21] More specifically, when analyzing weighted sample data employing the svy suite of commands in Stata the conventional Pearson χ ² statistic test of independence is converted into "an F statistic with noninteger degrees of freedom by using a 2d-order Rao and Scott (1981[22], 1984[23]) correction". [24] The p-value associated with the design-based F is thus more than accurate (than the p-value associated with the χ ² statistic) given the adjustments and calculations take into business relationship the weighted nature of the data. This final step too included an examination of the relative distribution of racial categories across the diverse reported reasons for discrimination. As noted earlier, all analyses were weighted according to the survey weight provided by the Add Health research staff and standard errors were corrected for the clustering and stratification that divers the sampling strategy. Thus, all estimates reported here can exist considered nationally representative of the U.s.a..

Results

Table two reveals the frequencies at which respondents in the Add together Health reported experiencing bigotry. Outset broadly, it appears that near of the respondents (near 75%) reported either having never, or merely rarely, been discriminated confronting in their day-to-mean solar day lives. Individual responses tin be observed across racial categories, with this same pattern of discrimination experiences reported inside the unlike racial categories. For all racial and ethnic groups represented in the information, the majority reported experiencing either none or infrequent discrimination. All the same, notation that there appears to exist a statistically significant difference between the racial categories and reported discrimination experiences (Design-based F _{(11.69, 1496.80)} = 4.16, p < .0001) and ever experiencing discrimination (Pattern-based F _{(4.68, 598.86)} = 8.73, p < .0001).

Table ii

Relative proportions of discrimination experiences past racial category.

		Discrimination Experiences a						Ever Experience Discrimination b
		Never	Rarely	Sometimes	Oftentimes	Total		No	Aye
White (Northward = ix,707)	Row %	thirty.34	46.xiii	19.41	4.12	100		76.47	23.53
	Column %	66.13	68.93	61.69	62.94	66.31		67.80	61.90
Blackness (N = ii,221)	Row %	29.83	38.29	26.46	5.41	100		68.12	31.88
	Column %	14.88	13.09	19.25	eighteen.92	15.17		xiii.82	19.19
Hispanic (N = 1,578)	Row %	32.52	xl.33	22.14	five.01	100		72.85	27.15
	Column %	11.53	9.eighty	11.44	12.43	10.78		x.50	xi.61
American Indian (N = 126)	Row %	25.x	47.88	22.13	4.89	100		72.98	27.02
	Cavalcade %	0.71	0.93	0.92	0.97	0.86		0.84	0.93
Asian (N = 445)	Row %	34.24	47.04	16.90	1.81	100		81.28	18.72
	Cavalcade %	3.43	three.23	2.47	ane.27	iii.04		3.31	2.26
Mixed Race (N = 561)	Row %	26.37	46.64	23.07	three.93	100		73.01	26.99
	Column %	3.32	four.03	4.24	3.47	3.83		3.74	four.11
Total (Due north = xiv,638)	Row %	30.42	44.38	twenty.86	4.34	100		74.lxxx	25.20
	Cavalcade %	100	100	100	100	100		100	100

Table 3 provides an in-depth cess of the perceived reasons for discrimination reported by those who sometimes or often experienced discrimination. The vast majority of these respondents reported the discrimination was due to reasons other than those covered in the nine mutually exclusive categories. Thus, the most common caption was not due to race, gender, sexual orientation, or age. Instead, the vague category of other seems to best describe the perceived source of the boilerplate American's discrimination experiences

Table 3

Reason given by respondents for discrimination for the total (restricted) sample and by racial category.

	Total a	White		Blackness		Hispanic		American Indian		Asian		Mixed Race
Reported Reason	Col.%	Row%	Col.%	Row%	Col.%	Row%	Col.%	Row%	Col.%	Row%	Col.%	Row%	Col.%
Race/Beginnings/Skin color	10.38	21.56	3.62	46.99	25.41	22.78	20.40	0.41	iv.55	3.78	17.09	four.48	11.22
Gender	4.71	69.86	five.32	xvi.88	4.14	five.64	ii.29	0.21	1.07	three.17	six.51	4.23	4.81
Age	7.50	68.34	8.29	11.35	4.43	13.43	viii.68	0.05	0.43	2.79	9.xi	iv.04	7.31
Religion	0.88	51.28	0.73	43.75	ii.01	three.76	0.29	0.00	0.00	1.11	0.43	0.01	0.02
Height or weight	5.47	75.91	6.71	12.71	3.62	4.58	ii.16	0.00	0.00	0.93	ii.23	v.86	7.74
Sexual orientation	0.39	58.79	0.37	26.19	0.53	11.43	0.38	0.00	0.00	3.22	0.54	0.37	0.03
Education or income	8.97	58.05	8.42	xix.36	9.05	fourteen.57	eleven.27	one.07	10.17	one.34	5.22	5.61	12.15
A physical inability	iii.04	63.52	3.12	15.20	2.41	10.80	2.83	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	10.47	vii.68
Other	58.66	66.83	63.41	15.84	48.40	10.22	51.seventy	1.34	83.79	ii.30	58.87	3.46	49.04
N (Row%)	three,613 (100)	2,234 (61.83)		694 (19.20)		419 (11.59)		34 (.94)		83 (ii.29)		150 (iv.14)

As for the residue of the responses in the full sample, discrimination attributable to race/ancestry/pare color was the about unremarkably reported cause (effectually 10%), and was followed closely by economic/educational factors (around 9%), and age (effectually 7%). Fig 1 presents the findings of Tabular array 3 in graphical format.

Sample weighted estimated proportion of reasons for discrimination for each racial category (see Table 3).

Discussion

Using a representative sample of American respondents who reflect a variety of racial and ethnic groups, the current written report examined perceived experiences of bigotry. Our results signal that the bulk of the sample reported either no feel with discrimination or that it had happened only rarely. Moreover, of those reporting having experienced discrimination, the majority suggested that unique and perhaps situationally specific factors other than race, gender, sexual orientation, and age were the crusade(s) of bigotry (for boosted insight, come across Everett et al. [nineteen]). Our results thus provide at least somewhat of a counterweight to possibly exaggerated claims that discrimination is a prevalent feature of contemporary life in the United states of america. Results from the Add Health data seem mostly inconsistent with such claims.

Prior to concluding, it is important to highlight limitations of the current report. Start, not all racial and indigenous groups represented in the United States were included in the sample. 2nd, the measure out of discrimination included in the Add together Wellness data was quite broad and could capture acts that were not necessarily discriminatory but rather unfair in nature. In plough, such a conceptualization on the part of respondents could be one reason for the preponderance of the other category equally a perceived reason for the bigotry (or unfair) experience. If discrimination were operationalized in a different manner, one might await a different pattern of findings. The "experiences of discrimination" (EOD) measure out analyzed by Krieger and colleagues [xiii], for example, is a multi-item construct that has been shown to be a reliable and valid assessment of cocky-reported racial bigotry. Importantly, single item indicators of discrimination seem to perform poorly when compared to multi-item measures. [13] Every bit a result, we might have uncovered higher levels of self-reported discrimination if nosotros had used a multi-item measure like the EOD. The Add Health did non include these items, yet the Add Wellness measures have been used to study the affect of discrimination experiences (e.g., Everett et al. [19]). For additional discussion regarding the use of self-reported perceived discrimination measures in United states of america samples, see also Kessler and colleagues. [15]

In brusk, much caution is necessary when interpreting our findings. What should be avoided is the conclusion that our results suggest that the problem of bigotry in the US is, to whatsoever great extent, remedied and in need of no farther scrutiny or improvement. Indeed, the observation of a bivariate association betwixt the racial categories and discrimination experiences (see Tables ​ 2 and ​ iii) suggests that such experiences vary by race, which should remain a topic of focus for social and behavioral scientists, also as for members of the customs (although maybe not in means hitherto suspected).

An additional point to consider is that although the Add Health data contained a number of possible reasons why someone might experience discriminated against, there were notwithstanding a number of boosted reasons that were non covered in our analyses. For instance, someone who perceived bigotry considering of their political affiliation, a form of discrimination that might be specially likely to be perceived during times of political polarization [25], would be captured in the "other" category. Our report, even so, was unable to address these other possible sources of bigotry with any degree of clarity. Moreover, individuals might perceive that bigotry against their group exists and is a problem (i.e., against the race or ethnicity with which they self-place), all the same they practise not feel that they, themselves, have been disrespected or discriminated against. Had the question been phrased differently, the response design may have been different. Moreover, while our analyses were distinguished past racial category, this is not the simply way in which discrimination experiences can be differentiated. For example, if our analyses were conducted based on sex or sexual orientation, the results may differ. For the sake of brevity, our analyses were limited to racial differentiation and nosotros recognize that future enquiry employing an alternating approach may generate dissimilar results.

Finally, respondents were not instructed to bound their responses to a particular fourth dimension frame (such as discrimination experienced in the terminal week, month, or twelvemonth) and, therefore, the item should reflect any feel with discrimination. This could be problematic if participants failed to call up instances of discrimination, and thus underreported their experiences. Alternatively, an unbounded question prompt does not restrict discrimination experiences to an arbitrarily divers fourth dimension menses. While this might have some desirable properties (widening the net of possible experiences to be included as "discriminatory"), it might besides serve to distort prevalence estimates in a variety of other ways (i.e., forgetting instances, or misremembering them, etc.). We await replications of our findings.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Information Availability

The information may be obtained by anyone who is interested via ane of two mechanisms. Kickoff, a portion of the data is publicly available online. 2nd, total admission to the information may be obtained via the custodians of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health. The authors of this manuscript are non legally permitted to dispute any data straight to interested parties. Nonetheless, all interested researchers can visit the website for the Add together Health Study (http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth) for information on downloading datasets. Public versions (which stand for a subset of the larger, restricted dataset) of the information are available both via the Add Wellness website (see in a higher place) and too via ICPSR (http://world wide web.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/21600?archive=ICPSR&q=21600). The restricted versions of the data (which include full samples of siblings, biomarkers, etc.) can exist obtained past contacting the custodians of the information and by submitting the advisable forms (found here: http://world wide web.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/contracts/new-add-health-restricted-apply-information-contract). For the electric current study, the co-author responsible for information assay, Dr. Joe Nedelec has the appropriate licensure for accessing the full data.

References

1. Jussim 50, Crawford JT, Rubinstein RS. Stereotype (in) accuracy in perceptions of groups and individuals. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2015. December;24(6):490–7. [Google Scholar]

ii. Monk EP Jr. The cost of color: Skin color, discrimination, and health among African-Americans. American Journal of Sociology. 2015. September 1;121(2):396–444. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

3. Unnever JD, Gabbidon SL. A theory of African American offending: Race, racism, and crime Taylor & Francis; 2011. March 1. [Google Scholar]

iv. Gibbons FX, Gerrard One thousand, Cleveland MJ, Wills TA, Brody 1000. Perceived discrimination and substance use in African American parents and their children: a console written report. Periodical of personality and social psychology. 2004. April;86(4):517 doi: x.1037/0022-3514.86.4.517 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

half dozen. Trawalter S, Todd AR, Baird AA, Richeson JA. Attending to threat: Race-based patterns of selective attention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2008. September xxx;44(5):1322–seven. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.03.006 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

7. Cikara G, Van Bavel JJ. The neuroscience of intergroup relations: an integrative review. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2014. May;9(iii):245–74. doi: ten.1177/1745691614527464 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

9. Molenberghs P. The neuroscience of in-grouping bias. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. 2013. September 30;37(8):1530–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

10. Kurzban R, Leary MR. Evolutionary origins of stigmatization: the functions of social exclusion. Psychological message. 2001. March;127(2):187 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

11. Paradies Y. A systematic review of empirical research on cocky-reported racism and health. International journal of epidemiology. 2006. April 3;35(4):888–901. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyl056 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

12. Bezrukova K, Jehn KA, Spell CS. Reviewing diversity grooming: Where we have been and where we should get. Academy of Management Learning & Education. 2012. June 1;11(ii):207–27. [Google Scholar]

13. Krieger N, Smith K, Naishadham D, Hartman C, Barbeau EM. Experiences of discrimination: validity and reliability of a self-report measure for population health inquiry on racism and health. Social science & medicine. 2005. October 31;61(7):1576–96. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

14. Liebkind One thousand, Jasinskaja‐Lahti I. The influence of experiences of bigotry on psychological stress: A comparing of seven immigrant groups. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology. 2000. January ane;ten(1):1–6. [Google Scholar]

xv. Kessler RC, Mickelson KD, Williams DR. The prevalence, distribution, and mental health correlates of perceived discrimination in the Us. Periodical of health and social behavior. 1999. September one:208–thirty. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

16. Harris KM, Halpern CT, Smolen A, Haberstick BC. The national longitudinal written report of boyish health (Add Wellness) twin data. Twin Inquiry and Homo Genetics. 2006. December;ix(6):988–97. doi: x.1375/183242706779462787 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

17. Chen P, Chantala K. Guidelines for analyzing Add Health data. Carolina Population Center, University of Northward Carolina at Chapel Hill; 2014. March:1–53. [Google Scholar]

xix. Everett BG, Saint Onge J, Mollborn S. Furnishings of Minority Status and Perceived Bigotry on Mental Wellness. Population Research and Policy Review. 2016. August 1;35(4):445–69. [Google Scholar]

20. Pang YC. The relationship between perceived discrimination, economic pressure level, depressive symptoms, and educational attainment of ethnic minority emerging adults: The moderating role of schoolhouse connectedness during adolescence (Doctoral dissertation, Iowa Land University). Available from: http://lib.mdiastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5501&context=etd.

21. Lee ES, Forthofer RN. Analyzing complex survey data. Sage Publications; 2005. September 22. [Google Scholar]

22. Rao JN, Scott AJ. The analysis of categorical information from complex sample surveys: chi-squared tests for goodness of fit and independence in ii-manner tables. Journal of the American statistical association. 1981. June i;76(374):221–30. [Google Scholar]

23. Rao JN, Scott AJ. On chi-squared tests for multiway contingency tables with cell proportions estimated from survey data. The Annals of statistics. 1984. March 1:46–60. [Google Scholar]

25. Graham J, Nosek BA, Haidt J. The moral stereotypes of liberals and conservatives: Exaggeration of differences across the political spectrum. PloS 1. 2012. December 12;7(12):e50092 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0050092 [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

---

Articles from PLoS Ane are provided here courtesy of Public Library of Science

---

baileyferse1943.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5570361/

Share this post