This markdown contains table 01s for elections with updated MTurk labels. These now come from a side-by-side survey with 10 voters per image which is much closer to the survey conducted in Todorov et.al. (2005) (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/308/5728/1623) which make use of about 50 voters. Our validation set is now reduced to 350 observations. We also updated the CNN to take care of the trainval-test split errors we found last week. All other variable definitions are the same as before. There are two tables here:
Table 01 Configuration 4 (using own-party-vote-share-jacknife in the election_lm) with updated Mturk features in the same model
Table 01 Configuration 4 but with each MTurk feature entered as a univariate model to check for each individually
NOTE Since this was a trial run, these results are based on 350 observations and if we decide it’s worth pursuing, we will need to run a bigger survey to gather high detail labels for our entire validation set.
Before jumping into regression output, I will put all definitions of important terms here:
Vote-Share : In all tables below, when vote-share is a LHS variable this means the vote-share of a specific candidate election. I.e. how much of the total vote did a specific candidate get in their election.
Own-Party-Vote-Share-Jacknife : This is a feature and computed as the “average vote share of my party in this state over all years excluding the current”
Replacing own_party_win_rate with own_party_vote_share_jacknife in the election lm. This now includes:
Own Party Vote-share-Jacknife is computed as: “average vote share of my party in this state over all years excluding the current”
NOTE I now include a split for high detail vs. low detail MTurk labels.
Lower Detail are using regression output from the previous survey in which we have between 3-4 voters per image, but over 1,300 observations
Higher Detail uses the new 10 voter per image Mturk survey, which is reduced to only 350 observations
| Table 01 - Election Regressions - Comparing High/Low Detail MTurk | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fit measured in adjusted R squared and AUC | ||||||
| Model Configuration | Election Outcome | Vote Share | ||||
| R-Sqrt High Detail | AUC High Detail | R-Sqrt Low Detail | AUC Low Detail | R-Sqrt High Detail | R-Sqrt Low Detail | |
| Single Variable Model | ||||||
| Election LM | 0.0245 | 0.6421 | 0.0667 | 0.6421 | 0.0259 | 0.0742 |
| Lower 95% C.I. | 0.0027 | 0.5183 | 0.0462 | 0.6115 | 0.0036 | 0.0527 |
| Upper 95% C.I. | 0.0635 | 0.5412 | 0.0904 | 0.6726 | 0.0636 | 0.0974 |
| Sex | −0.0012 | 0.5581 | 0.0037 | 0.5183 | −0.0017 | 0.0048 |
| −0.0031 | 0.6858 | 0.0006 | 0.4962 | −0.0031 | 0.0008 | |
| 0.0174 | 0.6904 | 0.0094 | 0.5404 | 0.0136 | 0.0124 | |
| Skine-Tone | 0.0110 | 0.7323 | −0.0077 | 0.5412 | 0.0135 | −0.0022 |
| 0.0145 | 0.6443 | −0.0035 | 0.5098 | 0.0146 | 0.0005 | |
| 0.1065 | 0.7342 | 0.0172 | 0.5726 | 0.1219 | 0.0271 | |
| MTurk Features | 0.0781 | 0.6577 | 0.0127 | 0.5581 | 0.0689 | −0.0003 |
| 0.0420 | 0.7394 | 0.0057 | 0.5264 | 0.0383 | −0.0020 | |
| 0.1377 | 0.6699 | 0.0288 | 0.5898 | 0.1260 | 0.0095 | |
| P_hat_cnn | 0.1487 | 0.7432 | 0.1011 | 0.6858 | 0.1423 | 0.0804 |
| 0.0950 | 0.6421 | 0.0766 | 0.6566 | 0.0852 | 0.0578 | |
| 0.2106 | 0.5183 | 0.1298 | 0.7149 | 0.2139 | 0.1079 | |
| Combined Variable Model | ||||||
| P_hat_cnn + MTurk Features | 0.2045 | 0.5412 | 0.1053 | 0.6904 | 0.1906 | 0.0778 |
| 0.1558 | 0.5581 | 0.0842 | 0.6614 | 0.1386 | 0.0570 | |
| 0.2798 | 0.6858 | 0.1366 | 0.7193 | 0.2728 | 0.1058 | |
| Election LM + P_hat_cnn | 0.1604 | 0.6904 | 0.1579 | 0.7323 | 0.1593 | 0.1469 |
| 0.1069 | 0.7323 | 0.1298 | 0.7047 | 0.1031 | 0.1177 | |
| 0.2267 | 0.6443 | 0.1908 | 0.7598 | 0.2302 | 0.1777 | |
| Election LM + Sex | 0.0217 | 0.7342 | 0.0683 | 0.6443 | 0.0232 | 0.0780 |
| 0.0028 | 0.6577 | 0.0488 | 0.6139 | 0.0027 | 0.0573 | |
| 0.0632 | 0.7394 | 0.0926 | 0.6748 | 0.0666 | 0.1039 | |
| Election LM + Sex + P_hat_cnn | 0.1609 | 0.6699 | 0.1594 | 0.7342 | 0.1595 | 0.1504 |
| 0.1125 | 0.7432 | 0.1311 | 0.7068 | 0.1101 | 0.1238 | |
| 0.2340 | 0.6421 | 0.1918 | 0.7616 | 0.2351 | 0.1841 | |
| Election LM + Sex + Skin-Tone | 0.0300 | 0.5183 | 0.0613 | 0.6577 | 0.0300 | 0.0758 |
| 0.0311 | 0.5412 | 0.0536 | 0.6276 | 0.0307 | 0.0650 | |
| 0.1353 | 0.5581 | 0.0992 | 0.6878 | 0.1571 | 0.1192 | |
| Election LM + Sex + Skin-Tone + P_hat_cnn | 0.1789 | 0.6858 | 0.1540 | 0.7394 | 0.1667 | 0.1492 |
| 0.1556 | 0.6904 | 0.1358 | 0.7123 | 0.1468 | 0.1304 | |
| 0.2915 | 0.7323 | 0.1978 | 0.7666 | 0.3000 | 0.1970 | |
| Election LM + Sex + Skin-Tone + MTurk | 0.0972 | 0.6443 | 0.0731 | 0.6699 | 0.0773 | 0.0742 |
| 0.0927 | 0.7342 | 0.0662 | 0.6403 | 0.0779 | 0.0664 | |
| 0.2201 | 0.6577 | 0.1155 | 0.6995 | 0.2168 | 0.1188 | |
| Election LM + Sex + Skin-Tone + MTurk + P_hat_cnn | 0.2287 | 0.7394 | 0.1575 | 0.7432 | 0.2014 | 0.1465 |
| 0.2014 | 0.6699 | 0.1434 | 0.7161 | 0.1859 | 0.1317 | |
| 0.3479 | 0.7432 | 0.2074 | 0.7702 | 0.3353 | 0.1994 | |
In this table I decide to include the different MTurk features individually in the single variable model section. We can see that on the high-detail features every feature other than Attractiveness is significant.
| Table 01 - Version 04 - Election Regressions - Individual High Detail MTurk Features | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Fit measured in adjusted R squared and AUC | |||
| Model Configuration | Election Outcome | Vote Share | |
| Adjusted R Squared | ROC AUC | Adjusted R squared | |
| Single Variable Model | |||
| Election LM | 0.0245 | 0.5708 | 0.0259 |
| Lower 95% C.I. | 0.0031 | 0.5073 | 0.0032 |
| Upper 95% C.I. | 0.0621 | 0.6343 | 0.0621 |
| Sex | −0.0012 | 0.5189 | −0.0017 |
| −0.0031 | 0.4723 | −0.0031 | |
| 0.0180 | 0.5654 | 0.0132 | |
| Skine-Tone | 0.0110 | 0.6285 | 0.0135 |
| 0.0139 | 0.5685 | 0.0165 | |
| 0.1047 | 0.6885 | 0.1307 | |
| Attractiveness | 0.0024 | 0.5442 | 0.0225 |
| −0.0031 | 0.4809 | 0.0023 | |
| 0.0249 | 0.6075 | 0.0569 | |
| Competence | 0.0307 | 0.6097 | 0.0520 |
| 0.0064 | 0.5479 | 0.0199 | |
| 0.0706 | 0.6714 | 0.1025 | |
| Dominance | 0.0194 | 0.5878 | 0.0271 |
| 0.0008 | 0.5253 | 0.0041 | |
| 0.0585 | 0.6502 | 0.0624 | |
| Trustworthiness | 0.0466 | 0.6191 | 0.0462 |
| 0.0143 | 0.5580 | 0.0148 | |
| 0.0877 | 0.6802 | 0.0930 | |
| P_hat_cnn | 0.1487 | 0.7263 | 0.1423 |
| 0.0929 | 0.6711 | 0.0899 | |
| 0.2138 | 0.7816 | 0.2143 | |
| Combined Variable Model | |||
| Election LM + P_hat_cnn | 0.1604 | 0.7338 | 0.1593 |
| 0.1064 | 0.6792 | 0.1041 | |
| 0.2298 | 0.7884 | 0.2293 | |
| Election LM + Sex | 0.0217 | 0.5798 | 0.0232 |
| 0.0026 | 0.5167 | 0.0022 | |
| 0.0611 | 0.6429 | 0.0650 | |
| Election LM + Sex + P_hat_cnn | 0.1609 | 0.7377 | 0.1595 |
| 0.1072 | 0.6836 | 0.1022 | |
| 0.2352 | 0.7918 | 0.2308 | |
| Election LM + Sex + Skin-Tone | 0.0300 | 0.6635 | 0.0300 |
| 0.0305 | 0.6042 | 0.0336 | |
| 0.1376 | 0.7228 | 0.1578 | |
| Election LM + Sex + Skin-Tone + P_hat_cnn | 0.1789 | 0.7792 | 0.1667 |
| 0.1558 | 0.7292 | 0.1480 | |
| 0.2932 | 0.8292 | 0.3069 | |
| Election LM + Sex + Skin-Tone + MTurk | 0.0972 | 0.7302 | 0.0773 |
| 0.0915 | 0.6755 | 0.0794 | |
| 0.2222 | 0.7849 | 0.2194 | |
| Election LM + Sex + Skin-Tone + MTurk + P_hat_cnn | 0.2287 | 0.8141 | 0.2014 |
| 0.2043 | 0.7675 | 0.1866 | |
| 0.3480 | 0.8607 | 0.3418 | |