HW4

getwd()

## [1] "/Users/nataliazagoriti/Desktop/HW4"

# List of packages
packages <- c("tidyverse", "infer", "fst", "modelsummary", "effects", "survey", "interactions") # add any you need here

# Install packages if they aren't installed already
new_packages <- packages[!(packages %in% installed.packages()[,"Package"])]
if(length(new_packages)) install.packages(new_packages)

# Load the packages
lapply(packages, library, character.only = TRUE)

## ── Attaching core tidyverse packages ──────────────────────── tidyverse 2.0.0 ──
## ✔ dplyr     1.1.4     ✔ readr     2.1.5
## ✔ 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: carData
## 
## lattice theme set by effectsTheme()
## See ?effectsTheme for details.
## 
## Loading required package: grid
## 
## Loading required package: Matrix
## 
## 
## Attaching package: 'Matrix'
## 
## 
## The following objects are masked from 'package:tidyr':
## 
##     expand, pack, unpack
## 
## 
## Loading required package: survival
## 
## 
## Attaching package: 'survey'
## 
## 
## The following object is masked from 'package:graphics':
## 
##     dotchart

## [[1]]
##  [1] "lubridate" "forcats"   "stringr"   "dplyr"     "purrr"     "readr"    
##  [7] "tidyr"     "tibble"    "ggplot2"   "tidyverse" "stats"     "graphics" 
## [13] "grDevices" "utils"     "datasets"  "methods"   "base"     
## 
## [[2]]
##  [1] "infer"     "lubridate" "forcats"   "stringr"   "dplyr"     "purrr"    
##  [7] "readr"     "tidyr"     "tibble"    "ggplot2"   "tidyverse" "stats"    
## [13] "graphics"  "grDevices" "utils"     "datasets"  "methods"   "base"     
## 
## [[3]]
##  [1] "fst"       "infer"     "lubridate" "forcats"   "stringr"   "dplyr"    
##  [7] "purrr"     "readr"     "tidyr"     "tibble"    "ggplot2"   "tidyverse"
## [13] "stats"     "graphics"  "grDevices" "utils"     "datasets"  "methods"  
## [19] "base"     
## 
## [[4]]
##  [1] "modelsummary" "fst"          "infer"        "lubridate"    "forcats"     
##  [6] "stringr"      "dplyr"        "purrr"        "readr"        "tidyr"       
## [11] "tibble"       "ggplot2"      "tidyverse"    "stats"        "graphics"    
## [16] "grDevices"    "utils"        "datasets"     "methods"      "base"        
## 
## [[5]]
##  [1] "effects"      "carData"      "modelsummary" "fst"          "infer"       
##  [6] "lubridate"    "forcats"      "stringr"      "dplyr"        "purrr"       
## [11] "readr"        "tidyr"        "tibble"       "ggplot2"      "tidyverse"   
## [16] "stats"        "graphics"     "grDevices"    "utils"        "datasets"    
## [21] "methods"      "base"        
## 
## [[6]]
##  [1] "survey"       "survival"     "Matrix"       "grid"         "effects"     
##  [6] "carData"      "modelsummary" "fst"          "infer"        "lubridate"   
## [11] "forcats"      "stringr"      "dplyr"        "purrr"        "readr"       
## [16] "tidyr"        "tibble"       "ggplot2"      "tidyverse"    "stats"       
## [21] "graphics"     "grDevices"    "utils"        "datasets"     "methods"     
## [26] "base"        
## 
## [[7]]
##  [1] "interactions" "survey"       "survival"     "Matrix"       "grid"        
##  [6] "effects"      "carData"      "modelsummary" "fst"          "infer"       
## [11] "lubridate"    "forcats"      "stringr"      "dplyr"        "purrr"       
## [16] "readr"        "tidyr"        "tibble"       "ggplot2"      "tidyverse"   
## [21] "stats"        "graphics"     "grDevices"    "utils"        "datasets"    
## [26] "methods"      "base"

ess <- read_fst("All-ESS-Data.fst")

Task 1

Graph the histogram distribution using the populist scale (as we did in the tutorial) for the country of Sweden. What do you note?

sweden_data <- read_fst("sweden_data.fst")

# Setting values greater than 10 to NA
sweden_data$trstplt <- ifelse(sweden_data$trstplt > 10, NA, sweden_data$trstplt)
sweden_data$trstprl <- ifelse(sweden_data$trstprl > 10, NA, sweden_data$trstprl)
sweden_data$trstprt <- ifelse(sweden_data$trstprt > 10, NA, sweden_data$trstprt)

# Creating and rescaling the trust variable
sweden_data$trust <- scales::rescale(sweden_data$trstplt + sweden_data$trstprl + sweden_data$trstprt, na.rm = TRUE, to = c(0, 100))

# Here's how you would "flip it" because populist is conceived by N + I as 'anti-trust'
# As Schafer explains there are some issues with that conceptualization, but N + I is also widely applied
sweden_data$populist <- scales::rescale(sweden_data$trust, na.rm = TRUE, to=c(100,0))

ggplot(sweden_data, aes(x = populist)) +
  geom_histogram(bins = 30, fill = "blue", color = "black") +
  theme_minimal() +
  labs(title = "Distribution of Populist Scale for Sweden",
       x = "Populist Scale",
       y = "Count")

## Warning: Removed 2503 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_bin()`).

According to the Norris and Ingelhart populist scale, a score of 0 signifies full trust in parliament/politicians, while a score of 100 indicates complete distrust. In Sweden, the majority of responses cluster around 50, indicating moderate trust in parliament/politicians. This suggests that Sweden does not align strongly with populism, as low levels of trust, which are high scores, are typically associated with populist sentiments. The distribution curve is skewed to the right, with more responses in the 25-50 range than the 50-75 range, indicating a moderate/neutral level of trust among Swedes towards their political institutions.

Task 2

Run a linear regression with populist attitudes as the outcome, educational attainment (recoded as a binary “BA or more” and “No BA”), and using the Swedish data. Print the intercept and coefficients only and interpret. Then do a tidy model table displaying the p-value (with digits = 3) and interpret.

sweden_data <- read.fst("sweden_data.fst")
df <- sweden_data

model_data <- df %>%
  mutate(
    # Recoding gender
    gndr = case_when(
      gndr == 1 ~ "Male",
      gndr == 2 ~ "Female",
      gndr == 9 ~ NA_character_,
      TRUE ~ as.character(gndr)
    ),

 # Recoding education
    educ.ba = case_when(
      essround < 5 & edulvla == 5 ~ "BA or more",
      essround >= 5 & edulvlb > 600 ~ "BA or more",
      TRUE ~ "No BA"
    ),
    
    # Handle NAs for education levels
    edulvla = ifelse(edulvla %in% c(77, 88, 99), NA_integer_, edulvla),
    edulvlb = ifelse(edulvlb %in% c(5555, 7777, 8888), NA_integer_, edulvlb),
    
    # Explicitly making 'No BA' the reference category
    educ.ba = factor(educ.ba, levels = c("No BA", "BA or more")),

    # Recoding age, setting 999 to NA
    age = ifelse(agea == 999, NA, agea),

    # Recoding cohort variable, setting years before 1930 and after 2000 to NA
    cohort = ifelse(yrbrn < 1930 | yrbrn > 2000, NA, yrbrn),

    # Recoding generational cohorts based on year of birth
    gen = case_when(
      yrbrn %in% 1900:1945 ~ "1",
      yrbrn %in% 1946:1964 ~ "2",
      yrbrn %in% 1965:1979 ~ "3",
      yrbrn %in% 1980:1996 ~ "4",
      TRUE ~ as.character(cohort)  # Keeping other values as character if they do not fit the ranges
    ),

    # Converting cohort to a factor with labels
    gen = factor(gen,
                 levels = c("1", "2", "3", "4"),
                 labels = c("Interwar", "Baby Boomers", "Gen X", "Millennials"))
  )
table(model_data$gen)

## 
##     Interwar Baby Boomers        Gen X  Millennials 
##         4021         5787         4263         3609

sweden_data <- sweden_data %>%
  mutate( 
   educ.ba = case_when(
      essround < 5 & edulvla == 5 ~ "BA or more",
      essround >= 5 & edulvlb > 600 ~ "BA or more",
      TRUE ~ "No BA"
    ),
    
    # Handle NAs for education levels
    edulvla = ifelse(edulvla %in% c(77, 88, 99), NA_integer_, edulvla),
    edulvlb = ifelse(edulvlb %in% c(5555, 7777, 8888), NA_integer_, edulvlb),
    
    # Explicitly making 'No BA' the reference category
    educ.ba = factor(educ.ba, levels = c("No BA", "BA or more"))
  )

table(sweden_data$educ.ba)

## 
##      No BA BA or more 
##      13477       4739

Task 3

Now using the Italian dataset and the authoritarian values scale (as we did in the tutorial), graph the average by survey year. Interpret.

df <- read.fst("italy_data.fst")
## Creates an authoritarian values scale based on human modules items (can also do libertarian value scale)
df <- df %>%
  mutate(behave = ipbhprp,
         secure = impsafe,
         safety = ipstrgv,
         tradition = imptrad,
         rules = ipfrule) %>%
  mutate(across(c("behave", "secure", "safety", "tradition", "rules"),
                ~ na_if(.x, 7) %>% na_if(8) %>% na_if(9))) %>%
  # Apply the reverse coding
  mutate(across(c("behave", "secure", "safety", "tradition", "rules"), ~ 7 - .x ))

# Now you can calculate 'schwartzauth' after the NA recoding
df$auth <- scales::rescale(df$behave + 
                      df$secure + 
                      df$safety + 
                      df$tradition + 
                      df$rules, to=c(0,100), na.rm=TRUE)


df <- df %>% filter(!is.na(auth))
table(df$secure)

## 
##    1    2    3    4    5    6 
##   54  139  626 1856 2876 2881

table(df$auth)

## 
##   0  12  16  20  24  28  32  36  40  44  48  52  56  60  64  68  72  76  80  84 
##   7   4   4   9  13  20  27  57 113 155 163 323 367 596 647 789 823 897 992 733 
##  88  92  96 100 
## 632 465 299 297

df$year <- NA
replacements <- c(2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020)
for(i in 1:10){
  df$year[df$essround == i] <- replacements[i]
}
auth_avg <- df %>%
  group_by(year) %>%
  summarize(auth_avg = mean(auth, na.rm = TRUE))

plot_auth <- ggplot(auth_avg, aes(x = year, y = auth_avg)) +
  geom_point(aes(color = auth_avg), alpha = 1.0) + 
  geom_line(aes(group = 1), color = "blue", linetype = "dashed") +  
  labs(title = "Authoritarian Scale Average by Year (Italy)",
       x = "Survey Year",
       y = "Authoritarian Scale Average") +
  theme_minimal() +
  theme(legend.position = "none") +
  scale_y_continuous(limits = c(0, 100))

print(plot_auth)

The average authoritarian scale for Italy has remained largely consistent from 2012 to 2020, experiencing minimal fluctuations. While there was a slight decrease from 75 in 2012 to around 71 in 2016, it gradually rose again thereafter, reaching approximately 73 in 2018 and about 74 in 2020. This consistent average score of 75 indicates that Italians consistently demonstrate attitudes and values that align relatively strongly with authoritarianism, with the trend showing stability over time and few notable variations.

Task 4

Now run a linear regression model, using the modelsummary package, with authoritarian values as the outcome, and generations as the predictor/potential explanatory variable, and using the Italian data again. Rename the coefficients using the coef_rename function. Interpret the coefficients, whether they are statistically significant, and the adjusted R-squared.

df <- read.fst("italy_data.fst")
## Creates an authoritarian values scale based on human modules items (can also do libertarian value scale)
df <- df %>%
  mutate(behave = ipbhprp,
         secure = impsafe,
         safety = ipstrgv,
         tradition = imptrad,
         rules = ipfrule) %>%
  mutate(across(c("behave", "secure", "safety", "tradition", "rules"),
                ~ na_if(.x, 7) %>% na_if(8) %>% na_if(9))) %>%
  # Apply the reverse coding
  mutate(across(c("behave", "secure", "safety", "tradition", "rules"), ~ 7 - .x ))

# Now you can calculate 'schwartzauth' after the NA recoding
df$auth <- scales::rescale(df$behave + 
                      df$secure + 
                      df$safety + 
                      df$tradition + 
                      df$rules, to=c(0,100), na.rm=TRUE)


df <- df %>% filter(!is.na(auth))
table(df$secure)

## 
##    1    2    3    4    5    6 
##   54  139  626 1856 2876 2881

model_data <- df %>%
  mutate(
    # Recoding cohort variable, setting years before 1930 and after 2000 to NA
    cohort = ifelse(yrbrn < 1930 | yrbrn > 2000, NA, yrbrn),

    # Recoding generational cohorts based on year of birth
    gen = case_when(
      yrbrn %in% 1900:1945 ~ "1",
      yrbrn %in% 1946:1964 ~ "2",
      yrbrn %in% 1965:1979 ~ "3",
      yrbrn %in% 1980:1996 ~ "4",
      TRUE ~ as.character(cohort)  # Keeping other values as character if they do not fit the ranges
    ),

    # Converting cohort to a factor with labels
    gen = factor(gen,
                 levels = c("1", "2", "3", "4"),
                 labels = c("Interwar", "Baby Boomers", "Gen X", "Millennials"))
  )
table(model_data$gen)

## 
##     Interwar Baby Boomers        Gen X  Millennials 
##         1026         2580         2214         1811

model1 <- lm(auth ~ gen, data = model_data)

modelsummary(
  list(model1),
  fmt = 1,
  estimate  = c( "{estimate} ({std.error}){stars}"),
  statistic = NULL,
  coef_rename = c("genBaby Boomers" = "Baby Boomers", "genGen X" = "Gen X", "genMillennials" = "Millennials"),
  coef_omit = "Intercept")

	(1)
Baby Boomers	−1.1 (0.6)*
Gen X	−2.1 (0.6)***
Millennials	−3.6 (0.6)***
Num.Obs.	7631
R2	0.006
R2 Adj.	0.006
AIC	62934.0
BIC	62968.7
Log.Lik.	−31462.009
RMSE	14.94

Baby Boomers, compared to the Interwar generation, show an average decrease of 1.1 points on the authoritarian values scale, with statistical significance (p < 0.001). Generation X exhibits an even more pronounced decrease of 2.1 points, while Millennials display the most significant decrease of 3.6 points. These differences are statistically significant (p < 0.001), highlighting Millennials as the group with the strongest deviation from the Interwar generation in terms of authoritarian values. However, despite these findings, the adjusted R-squared value of 0.006 suggests that the ‘gen’ variable (representing the four generations) explains only about 0.6% of the variability in authoritarian values in Italy. This indicates that factors beyond generational differences significantly influence these attitudes.

Task 5

Now visualize, using the modelplot() function from the modelsummary package, coefficient estimates and 95% confidence intervals for the following three models:

Model 1 = populist attitudes scale as the outcome; left/right as the single predictor (omitting moderates as we did in the tutorial), and using data for Greece.

Model 2 = populist attitudes scale as the outcome; gender as the single predictor, and using data for Greece.

Model 3 = populist attitudes scale as the outcome; generations as the single predictor (using the four generational category recode we did in the tutorial), and using data for Greece. Interpret.

greece_data <- read.fst("greece_data.fst")


# Setting values greater than 10 to NA
greece_data$trstplt <- ifelse(greece_data$trstplt > 10, NA, greece_data$trstplt)
greece_data$trstprl <- ifelse(greece_data$trstprl > 10, NA, greece_data$trstprl)
greece_data$trstprt <- ifelse(greece_data$trstprt > 10, NA, greece_data$trstprt)

# Creating and rescaling the trust variable
greece_data$trust <- scales::rescale(greece_data$trstplt + greece_data$trstprl + greece_data$trstprt, na.rm = TRUE, to = c(0, 100))

greece_data$populist <- scales::rescale(greece_data$trust, na.rm = TRUE, to=c(100,0))

model_data <- greece_data %>%
  mutate(
    # Recoding gender
    gndr = case_when(
      gndr == 1 ~ "Male",
      gndr == 2 ~ "Female",
      gndr == 9 ~ NA_character_,
      TRUE ~ as.character(gndr)
    ),

    lrscale = case_when(
      lrscale %in% 0:4 ~ "Left",                     # This time: Values 0 to 3 in 'lrscale' are categorized as "Left"
      lrscale %in% 6:10 ~ "Right",                   # This time: Values 6 to 10 in 'lrscale' are categorized as "Right"
      lrscale %in% c(77, 88, 99) ~ NA_character_,    # Values 77, 88, 99 in 'lrscale' are set as NA
      TRUE ~ NA_character_                           # Any other values not explicitly matched above
    ),

    # Recoding cohort variable, setting years before 1930 and after 2000 to NA
    cohort = ifelse(yrbrn < 1930 | yrbrn > 2000, NA, yrbrn),

    # Recoding generational cohorts based on year of birth
    gen = case_when(
      yrbrn %in% 1900:1945 ~ "1",
      yrbrn %in% 1946:1964 ~ "2",
      yrbrn %in% 1965:1979 ~ "3",
      yrbrn %in% 1980:1996 ~ "4",
      TRUE ~ as.character(cohort)  # Keeping other values as character if they do not fit the ranges
    ),

    # Converting cohort to a factor with labels
    gen = factor(gen,
                 levels = c("1", "2", "3", "4"),
                 labels = c("Interwar", "Baby Boomers", "Gen X", "Millennials"))
  )
table(model_data$gen)

## 
##     Interwar Baby Boomers        Gen X  Millennials 
##         2978         3484         3498         2330

model1 <- lm(populist ~ lrscale, data = model_data)
model2 <- lm(populist ~ gndr, data = model_data)
model3 <- lm(populist ~ gen, data = model_data)

models <- list(
   "Model 1" = lm(populist ~ lrscale, data = model_data),
   "Model 2" = lm(populist ~ gndr, data = model_data),
   "Model 3" = lm(populist ~ gen, data = model_data))
modelsummary(models, fmt = 1,
  estimate  = c("{estimate} ({std.error}){stars}",
                "{estimate} ({std.error}){stars}",
                "{estimate} ({std.error}){stars}"),
  statistic = NULL)

	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3
(Intercept)	72.0 (0.5)***	70.0 (0.3)***	65.8 (0.5)***
lrscaleRight	−8.8 (0.6)***
gndrMale		−1.0 (0.5)*
genBaby Boomers			3.5 (0.7)***
genGen X			5.6 (0.7)***
genMillennials			5.8 (0.7)***
Num.Obs.	4936	9823	9562
R2	0.037	0.000	0.009
R2 Adj.	0.036	0.000	0.009
AIC	44723.8	88873.2	86473.9
BIC	44743.3	88894.8	86509.7
Log.Lik.	−22358.894	−44433.590	−43231.944
RMSE	22.44	22.30	22.25

modelplot(models, coef_omit = 'Interc')

Compared to the Interwar generation, Baby Boomers display an average increase of 3.5 points on the authoritarian values scale, Generation X shows a more pronounced increase of 5.6 points, and Millennials exhibit the most significant increase of 5.8 points. These differences are statistically significant (p < 0.05), indicating that each subsequent generation tends to show higher authoritarian values relative to the Interwar generation.The adjusted R-squared value of 0.009 suggests that the ‘gen’ variable explains approximately 0.9% of the variance in authoritarian values in Greece, after considering the predictors. However, this indicates that factors beyond generational differences influence these attitudes. Regarding other predictors, gender is not statistically significant, while the left/right model shows significance, with those identifying with the “Right” group scoring, on average, 8.8 points lower on the authoritarian scale. The variance explained by this model is 3.6%, the highest among the predictors. Model 1, focusing on populist attitude scale with left/right as the predictor, indicates that right-leaning Greeks score 4.75 points higher on the authoritarian scale compared to left-leaning Greeks. Model 2, with gender as the predictor, suggests that male Greeks score 2.0 points lower on the authoritarian scale than female Greeks. Model 3, with generations as the predictor, reveals that compared to the Interwar generation, Greek Baby Boomers score around 3.9 points lower, Generation X scores approximately 5.9 points lower, and Millennials score about 10.5 points lower on the authoritarian scale. This indicates a declining trend in the popularity of authoritarian values/attitudes across four generations in Greece.

End