packages <- c("tidyverse", "fst", "modelsummary", "viridis")
new_packages <- packages[!(packages %in% installed.packages()[,"Package"])]
if(length(new_packages)) install.packages(new_packages)
lapply(packages, library, character.only = TRUE)
## ── Attaching core tidyverse packages ──────────────────────── tidyverse 2.0.0 ──
## ✔ dplyr 1.1.4 ✔ readr 2.1.4
## ✔ forcats 1.0.0 ✔ stringr 1.5.1
## ✔ ggplot2 3.4.4 ✔ tibble 3.2.1
## ✔ lubridate 1.9.3 ✔ tidyr 1.3.0
## ✔ purrr 1.0.2
## ── Conflicts ────────────────────────────────────────── tidyverse_conflicts() ──
## ✖ dplyr::filter() masks stats::filter()
## ✖ dplyr::lag() masks stats::lag()
## ℹ Use the conflicted package (<http://conflicted.r-lib.org/>) to force all conflicts to become errors
## Loading required package: viridisLite
## [[1]]
## [1] "lubridate" "forcats" "stringr" "dplyr" "purrr" "readr"
## [7] "tidyr" "tibble" "ggplot2" "tidyverse" "stats" "graphics"
## [13] "grDevices" "utils" "datasets" "methods" "base"
##
## [[2]]
## [1] "fst" "lubridate" "forcats" "stringr" "dplyr" "purrr"
## [7] "readr" "tidyr" "tibble" "ggplot2" "tidyverse" "stats"
## [13] "graphics" "grDevices" "utils" "datasets" "methods" "base"
##
## [[3]]
## [1] "modelsummary" "fst" "lubridate" "forcats" "stringr"
## [6] "dplyr" "purrr" "readr" "tidyr" "tibble"
## [11] "ggplot2" "tidyverse" "stats" "graphics" "grDevices"
## [16] "utils" "datasets" "methods" "base"
##
## [[4]]
## [1] "viridis" "viridisLite" "modelsummary" "fst" "lubridate"
## [6] "forcats" "stringr" "dplyr" "purrr" "readr"
## [11] "tidyr" "tibble" "ggplot2" "tidyverse" "stats"
## [16] "graphics" "grDevices" "utils" "datasets" "methods"
## [21] "base"
##Task 1 Prompt: in the tutorial, we calculated the average trust in others for France and visualized it. Using instead the variable ‘Trust in Parliament’ (trstplt) and the country of Spain (country file provided on course website), visualize the average trust by survey year. You can truncate the y-axis if you wish. Provide appropriate titles and labels given the changes. What are your main takeaways based on the visual (e.g., signs of increase, decrease, or stall)?
spain_data <- read.fst("spain_data.fst")
spain_data <- spain_data %>%
mutate(
trstplt = ifelse(trstplt %in% c(77,88,99), NA, trstplt), # set values 77, 88, and 99 to NA.
)
table(spain_data$trstplt)
##
## 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
## 5165 1830 2329 2441 2085 2890 1154 639 355 80 71
spain_data$year <- NA
replacements <- c(2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020)
for(i in 1:10){
spain_data$year[spain_data$essround == i] <- replacements[i]
}
checking work:
table(spain_data$year)
##
## 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
## 1729 1663 1876 2576 1885 1889 1925 1958 1668 2283
calculating the average by year to then visualizing:
trust_by_year <- spain_data %>%
group_by(year) %>%
summarize(mean_trust = mean(trstplt, na.rm = TRUE))
trust_by_year
## # A tibble: 10 × 2
## year mean_trust
## <dbl> <dbl>
## 1 2002 3.41
## 2 2004 3.66
## 3 2006 3.49
## 4 2008 3.32
## 5 2010 2.72
## 6 2012 1.91
## 7 2014 2.23
## 8 2016 2.40
## 9 2018 2.55
## 10 2020 1.94
Visualizing the average:
ggplot(trust_by_year, aes(x = year, y = mean_trust)) +
geom_line(color = "blue", size = 1) + # Line to show the trend
geom_point(color = "red", size = 3) + # Points to highlight each year's value
labs(title = "Trust in Parliament in Spain (2002-2020)",
x = "Survey Year",
y = "Average Trust (0-10 scale)") +
ylim(0, 10) + # Setting the y-axis limits from 0 to 10
theme_minimal()
## Warning: Using `size` aesthetic for lines was deprecated in ggplot2 3.4.0.
## ℹ Please use `linewidth` instead.
## This warning is displayed once every 8 hours.
## Call `lifecycle::last_lifecycle_warnings()` to see where this warning was
## generated.
Based on the visual, the trust in parliament in Spain shows a sign of
decrease. However, overall, the trust in parliament in Spain has stalled
but more recently there are signs of decrease as seen in the 2020 survey
year where the average trust in parliament decreased from 5.107230 (in
2018) to 4.491095 (in 2020).
##Task 2 Prompt and question: Based on the figure we produced above called task2_plot, tell us: what are your main takeaways regarding France relative to Italy and Norway? Make sure to be concrete and highlight at least two important comparative trends visualized in the graph. Based on task2_plot, the main takeaways regarding France relative to Italy and Norway, is that the proportion of French feeling close to a party has decreased over the years, with its decrease most noticeable in 1950. In comparison to France, the proportion of Italians who feel close to a party has been stagnant but also decreasing. Additionally, in comparison to France, the proportion of Norwegians who feel close to a party had been on a decreasing trend however has become stagnant since the year 2000.
##Task 3 Question: What is the marginal percentage of Italian men who feel close to a particular political party?
italy_data <- read.fst("italy_data.fst")
italy_data <- italy_data %>%
mutate(
gndr = case_when(
gndr == 1 ~ "Male",
gndr == 2 ~ "Female",
TRUE ~ NA_character_ # Set anything that is not 1 or 2 to NA
),
lrscale = case_when(
lrscale %in% 0:3 ~ "Left", # Left-wing (0 to 3)
lrscale %in% 7:10 ~ "Right", # Right-wing (7 to 10)
TRUE ~ NA_character_ # Moderate (4, 5, 6) and special codes (77, 88, 99) set to NA
)
)
lrscale_percentages <- italy_data %>%
filter(!is.na(lrscale), !is.na(gndr)) %>%
group_by(gndr, lrscale) %>%
summarise(count = n(), .groups = 'drop') %>%
mutate(percentage = count / sum(count) * 100)
lrscale_percentages
## # A tibble: 4 × 4
## gndr lrscale count percentage
## <chr> <chr> <int> <dbl>
## 1 Female Left 930 23.9
## 2 Female Right 955 24.5
## 3 Male Left 924 23.7
## 4 Male Right 1084 27.8
Interpreting Marginal Percentages in Survey Data: Of all Italian respondents, 23.7% are males who lean politically left and 27.8% are males who lean politically right.
##Task 4 Provide code and output only. Prompt: In the tutorial, we calculated then visualized the percentage distribution for left vs. right by gender for France. Your task is to replicate the second version of the visualization but for the country of Sweden instead.
lrscale_plot <- ggplot(lrscale_percentages, aes(x = lrscale, y = percentage, fill = lrscale)) +
geom_bar(stat = "identity", position = position_dodge()) + # Dodged bar chart
facet_wrap(~ gndr, scales = "fixed") + # Fixed scales for y-axis across facets
scale_fill_brewer(palette = "Set1") + # Distinct colors for Left and Right
labs(
title = "Political Orientation (Left vs. Right) by Gender in Sweden",
x = "Political Orientation",
y = "Percentage of Respondents",
fill = "Orientation"
) +
theme_minimal() + # Minimal theme for clarity
theme(legend.position = "bottom") # Legend at the bottom
# Display the ggplot object
lrscale_plot
##Task 5 Provide code and answer: In Hungary, what is the conditional probability of NOT feeling close to any particular party given that the person lives in a rural area?
hungary_data <- read.fst("hungary_data.fst")
hungary_data <- hungary_data %>%
mutate(
geo = recode(as.character(domicil),
'1' = "Urban",
'2' = "Urban",
'3' = "Rural",
'4' = "Rural",
'5' = "Rural",
'7' = NA_character_,
'8' = NA_character_,
'9' = NA_character_)
) %>%
filter(!is.na(lrscale), !is.na(geo))
hungary_data <- hungary_data %>%
mutate(
gndr = case_when(
gndr == 1 ~ "Male",
gndr == 2 ~ "Female",
TRUE ~ NA_character_ # Set anything that is not 1 or 2 to NA
),
lrscale = case_when(
lrscale %in% 0:3 ~ "Left", # Left-wing (0 to 3)
lrscale %in% 7:10 ~ "Right", # Right-wing (7 to 10)
TRUE ~ NA_character_ # Moderate (4, 5, 6) and special codes (77, 88, 99) set to NA
)
)
# Calculate conditional probabilities, excluding NAs
cond <- hungary_data %>%
count(lrscale, geo) %>%
group_by(geo) %>%
mutate(prob = n / sum(n))
cond
## # A tibble: 6 × 4
## # Groups: geo [2]
## lrscale geo n prob
## <chr> <chr> <int> <dbl>
## 1 Left Rural 1653 0.140
## 2 Left Urban 893 0.185
## 3 Right Rural 3087 0.262
## 4 Right Urban 1297 0.268
## 5 <NA> Rural 7047 0.598
## 6 <NA> Urban 2650 0.548
Therefore, in Hungary, the conditional probability of NOT feeling close to any particular party given that the person lives in a rural area is 59.8%.