Demographics

N

N
150

Gender

gender N perc
man 83 55.33
woman 64 42.67
other 3 2.00

Race

race N perc
asian 12 8.00
black 9 6.00
hispanic 5 3.33
multiracial 8 5.33
white 116 77.33

Education

edu N perc
GED 35 23.33
2yearColl 16 10.67
4yearColl 70 46.67
MA 24 16.00
PHD 5 3.33

Income

SES

Political ideology

Employment

employ_1 N perc
No 1 0.67
Yes 149 99.33

Union membership

Are workers at your level and department in your workplace unionized?

membership_1 N perc
1 0.67
No 129 86.00
Yes 20 13.33

IF NOT NO: Are you a union member?

membership_2 N perc
No 4 19.05
Yes 17 80.95

IF NOT YES: Would you be interested in joining a union?

membership_3 N perc
No 62 41.33
Uncertain 52 34.67
Yes 36 24.00

Scale and measure validation

Workplace Zero-Sum: Company

Mean score of the following items:

1. My company’s success comes at the expense of me and my colleagues
2. My personal goals are aligned with my company’s goals (R)
3. When my company gains, my colleagues and I gain as well (R)
4. My goals in life are inconsistent with my company’s goals
5. My company succeeds by sacrificing my and my colleagues’ wellbeing
6. My company’s focus on productivity comes at the expense of my colleagues’ emotional safety
7. My company’s focus on productivity comes at the expense of my colleagues’ physical safety
8. My company’s policies are good for the company but bad for me and my colleagues

Internal consistency

raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N ase mean sd median_r
0.8808566 0.8818228 0.9019421 0.4825982 7.46187 0.0256325 2.9325 1.323408 0.4939133

Distribution

hmm, pretty skewed. Let’s see which items are driving this.

Item-by-item distribution

ok, what if we took out item 7 and item 3?

6-item WPZS_C internal consistency

raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N ase mean sd median_r
0.8445608 0.8442503 0.8449607 0.4746317 5.420559 0.0341858 3.066667 1.398898 0.4844821

6-item WPZS_C distribution

WPZS_C_short by gender

WPZS_C_short by race

WPZS_C_short by income

WPZS_C_short by education

WPZS_C_short by political ideology

Workplace Zero-Sum: Manager

Mean score of the following items:

1. My manager’s success comes at the expense of me and my colleagues
2. My personal goals are aligned with my manager’s goals (R)
3. When my manager gains, my colleagues and I gain as well (R)
4. My goals in life are inconsistent with my manager’s goals
5. My manager succeeds by sacrificing my and my colleagues’ wellbeing
6. My manager’s focus on productivity comes at the expense of my colleagues’ emotional safety
7. My manager’s focus on productivity comes at the expense of my colleagues’ physical safety
8. My manager’s policies are good for the company but bad for me and my colleagues

Internal consistency

raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N ase mean sd median_r
0.9171793 0.9195324 0.9230122 0.5882096 11.42736 0.017467 2.6775 1.434383 0.5842608

Distribution

Item-by-item distribution

I’ll take out the same two items for WPZS_M

6-item WPZS_M internal consistency

raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N ase mean sd median_r
0.8969156 0.8985172 0.8922851 0.5960654 8.853891 0.0226757 2.753333 1.539075 0.5755563

6-item WPZS_C distribution

Employer-Employee Tradeffs

Prompt to participants:
Imagine that your company was trying to increase the company’s profits (i.e., “the bottom line”).
There are several ways in which a company can increase its profits.
In your experience, how do managers at your company try to increase profits?


My company often tries to increase profits by (decreasing/increasing/neither) for each of the following:
1. employee wages
2. safety measures
3. employee benefits
4. promotion opportunities
5. annual bonuses
6. overtime compensation

For each: decrease = -1; increase = 1, neither = 0. Then, I took the sum of the six scores to create a tradeoffs score.

Distribution

Item-by-item distribution

Union attitudes

Mean score of the following items:

1. Unions are a positive force in this country
2. If I had to choose, I probably would not be a member of a labor union (R)
3. I am glad that labor unions exist
4. People would be just as well off if there were no unions in this country (R)
5. Unions are an embarrassment to our society (R)
6. I am proud of the labor movement in this country
7. Most people are better off without labor unions (R)
8. Employees are considerably better off when they belong to a labor union

Internal consistency

raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N ase mean sd median_r
0.9338368 0.9359866 0.9414219 0.6463577 14.62173 0.0081862 5.0525 1.430087 0.6315802

Distribution

Union instrumentality

Mean score of the following items:

1. A union will improve how fairly decisions are made at my company
2. A union will lead to more respect for workers from my company

Internal consistency

union_inst_1 union_inst_2
union_inst_1 1.0000000 0.8887424
union_inst_2 0.8887424 1.0000000

Distribution

Union vote

Single item: If an election were held tomorrow to decide whether your workplace would have a union or not, what would be your vote?

union_vote N
No (against unionization) 52
Yes (for unionization) 98

Procedural justice

Mean score of the following items:

1. I have ample opportunity to express my views on decisions that affect me at my workplace
2. My company’s rules require that decisions be neutral and unbiased
3. My company’s procedures and policies are fair
4. My company’s rules are applied consistently across the organization
5. My company makes every effort to be fair when making decisions
6. My company’s rules protect my rights
7. My company’s rules ensure that workers are treated fairly
8. My company makes decisions fairly

Internal consistency

raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N ase mean sd median_r
0.977682 0.9778675 0.9765667 0.8466919 44.18249 0.0027585 5.144167 1.641261 0.8516256

Distribution

Distributive justice

Mean score of the following items:

1. The compensation and benefits that my company’s employees receive are fair
2. The compensation and benefits I receive reflect my contributions to my company
3. I feel fairly compensated as an employee

Internal consistency

raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N ase mean sd median_r
0.9648347 0.9649056 0.9491584 0.9016218 27.49457 0.004984 4.884444 1.744272 0.9021872

Distribution

Social identity

Mean score of the following items:

1. I feel strong ties with my company
2. I identify with my company’s community
3. I see myself as a member of my company’s community
4. When someone praises my company, it feels like a personal compliment to me
5. I am proud to be a member of my company’s community
6. Being an employee at my company says a lot about who i am as a person

Internal consistency

raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N ase mean sd median_r
0.9636843 0.9642586 0.9658776 0.8180648 26.97877 0.004702 4.684444 1.778166 0.8183079

Distribution

Marxist work beliefs

Mean score of the following items:

1. The free enterprise system mainly benefits the rich and powerful
2. The working classes should have more say in running society
3. Workers get their fair share of the economic rewards of society (R)
4. The work of the laboring classes is exploited by the rich for their own benefit
5. Wealthy people carry their fair share of the burdens in this country (R)
6. Workers should be represented on the board of directors of companies
7. The most important work in America is done by the laboring classes

Internal consistency

raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N ase mean sd median_r
0.8746212 0.8788612 0.8859508 0.508944 7.254992 0.0157122 5.208571 1.277928 0.5071473

Distribution

Analysis

Ok, now that we’re a bit more familiar with the variables, let’s take a look at some relationships between them. I’ll start with a correlation matrix:

Ok, some decent correlations. Stronger with company than with manager. What about voting intention (no = 0; yes = 1). Let’s just compare scores on some of these measures for those who would vote vs. those who would not vote.

measure No (against unionization) Yes (for unionization)
WPZS_C 2.3281250 3.2169118
WPZS_C_short 2.4270833 3.3676471
WPZS_M 2.0714286 2.9131944
WPZS_M_short 2.1071429 3.0046296
tradeoffs 0.1818182 -0.8214286
union_att 3.7788462 5.7283163
union_inst 2.9903846 5.8112245
just_proc 5.5697115 4.9183673
just_dist 5.6089744 4.5000000
identity 4.7467949 4.6513605
marx 4.4093407 5.6326531

pretty cool. I think these are all pretty much the relationships we’d expect. The identity question is pretty interesting.

Alright, let’s run some stats. Before we do, I’ll just note that the sample size is pretty small, so we’re really looking for p-values here. We’re looking for direction of effect and effect sizes.

Union vote as DV

Workplace Zero-Sum Company (short) as predictor

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-45)
Sole predictor
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 0.35 [0.04, 0.66] 2.27 48 .028
WPZS C short 0.11 [0.01, 0.20] 2.31 48 .025

Note. Union Vote DV: No = 0; Yes = 1

 

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-46)
Interaction with identity
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 0.98 [-0.36, 2.33] 1.47 46 .148
WPZS C short -0.06 [-0.35, 0.23] -0.44 46 .665
Identity -0.13 [-0.35, 0.10] -1.12 46 .266
WPZS C short \(\times\) Identity 0.04 [-0.01, 0.09] 1.45 46 .153

Note. Union Vote DV: No = 0; Yes = 1

 

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-48)
With controls
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept -0.28 [-1.37, 0.82] -0.51 45 .614
WPZS C short 0.06 [-0.06, 0.17] 0.97 45 .337
Marx 0.16 [0.06, 0.26] 3.18 45 .003
Just proc -0.01 [-0.11, 0.10] -0.15 45 .880
Just dist 0.00 [-0.09, 0.09] 0.00 45 .997

Note. Union Vote DV: No = 0; Yes = 1

 

Workplace Zero-Sum Manager (short) as predictor

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-49)
Sole predictor
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 0.51 [0.25, 0.76] 3.92 48 < .001
WPZS M short 0.08 [0.00, 0.16] 1.90 48 .063

Note. Union Vote DV: No = 0; Yes = 1

 

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-50)
Interaction with identity
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 0.09 [-0.80, 0.98] 0.20 46 .846
WPZS M short 0.11 [-0.09, 0.31] 1.10 46 .277
Identity 0.06 [-0.10, 0.22] 0.74 46 .460
WPZS M short \(\times\) Identity 0.00 [-0.04, 0.05] 0.16 46 .873

Note. Union Vote DV: No = 0; Yes = 1

 

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-52)
With controls
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 0.08 [-0.80, 0.97] 0.19 45 .850
WPZS M short 0.07 [-0.04, 0.18] 1.36 45 .181
Marx 0.08 [-0.03, 0.19] 1.52 45 .135
Just proc 0.11 [0.00, 0.21] 2.04 45 .048
Just dist -0.11 [-0.20, -0.02] -2.35 45 .023

Note. Union Vote DV: No = 0; Yes = 1

 

Tradeoffs as predictor

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-53)
Sole predictor
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 0.55 [0.40, 0.69] 7.68 48 < .001
Tradeoffs -0.04 [-0.09, 0.02] -1.35 48 .184

Note. Union Vote DV: No = 0; Yes = 1

 

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-54)
Interaction with identity
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 0.40 [-0.01, 0.82] 1.97 46 .055
Tradeoffs 0.01 [-0.14, 0.17] 0.19 46 .850
Identity 0.03 [-0.05, 0.12] 0.81 46 .424
Tradeoffs \(\times\) Identity -0.01 [-0.05, 0.02] -0.80 46 .430

Note. Union Vote DV: No = 0; Yes = 1

 

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-56)
With controls
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept -0.52 [-1.43, 0.40] -1.14 45 .261
Tradeoffs -0.02 [-0.08, 0.03] -0.81 45 .419
Marx 0.19 [0.08, 0.30] 3.53 45 .001
Just proc 0.02 [-0.13, 0.16] 0.24 45 .811
Just dist 0.00 [-0.14, 0.13] -0.05 45 .963

Note. Union Vote DV: No = 0; Yes = 1

 

Union attitudes as DV

Workplace Zero-Sum Company (short) as predictor

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-57)
Sole predictor
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 4.39 [3.45, 5.33] 9.38 48 < .001
WPZS C short 0.22 [-0.06, 0.50] 1.56 48 .126
(#tab:unnamed-chunk-58)
Interaction with identity
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 6.70 [2.61, 10.78] 3.30 46 .002
WPZS C short -0.20 [-1.08, 0.68] -0.46 46 .648
Identity -0.37 [-1.05, 0.31] -1.10 46 .279
WPZS C short \(\times\) Identity 0.06 [-0.10, 0.22] 0.73 46 .468

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-60)
With controls
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 2.50 [-0.19, 5.18] 1.87 45 .068
WPZS C short -0.05 [-0.34, 0.23] -0.38 45 .702
Marx 0.65 [0.40, 0.90] 5.28 45 < .001
Just proc -0.02 [-0.28, 0.24] -0.13 45 .895
Just dist -0.12 [-0.34, 0.10] -1.08 45 .286

Workplace Zero-Sum Manager (short) as predictor

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-61)
Sole predictor
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 4.57 [3.70, 5.44] 10.57 48 < .001
WPZS M short 0.16 [-0.12, 0.44] 1.17 48 .248
(#tab:unnamed-chunk-62)
Interaction with identity
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 1.50 [-1.41, 4.41] 1.04 46 .304
WPZS M short 0.69 [0.03, 1.35] 2.09 46 .042
Identity 0.55 [0.02, 1.08] 2.07 46 .044
WPZS M short \(\times\) Identity -0.09 [-0.23, 0.06] -1.19 46 .240

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-64)
With controls
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 0.95 [-1.68, 3.58] 0.73 45 .470
WPZS M short 0.15 [-0.17, 0.47] 0.93 45 .356
Marx 0.61 [0.29, 0.92] 3.84 45 < .001
Just proc 0.34 [0.03, 0.66] 2.19 45 .034
Just dist -0.25 [-0.53, 0.02] -1.85 45 .070

Tradeoffs as predictor

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-65)
Sole predictor
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 5.05 [4.64, 5.46] 24.63 48 < .001
Tradeoffs -0.11 [-0.26, 0.05] -1.38 48 .173
(#tab:unnamed-chunk-66)
Interaction with identity
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 5.22 [4.01, 6.42] 8.71 46 < .001
Tradeoffs -0.17 [-0.61, 0.28] -0.76 46 .450
Identity -0.04 [-0.29, 0.21] -0.33 46 .746
Tradeoffs \(\times\) Identity 0.02 [-0.08, 0.12] 0.33 46 .746

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-68)
With controls
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 0.31 [-1.80, 2.43] 0.30 45 .767
Tradeoffs -0.05 [-0.18, 0.07] -0.89 45 .380
Marx 0.81 [0.56, 1.06] 6.50 45 < .001
Just proc 0.08 [-0.25, 0.41] 0.49 45 .627
Just dist 0.02 [-0.30, 0.34] 0.11 45 .913

Organizational justice -> WPZS

WPZS: Company

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-69)
Procedural justice
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 5.93 [4.96, 6.90] 12.31 48 < .001
Just proc -0.56 [-0.74, -0.38] -6.25 48 < .001
(#tab:unnamed-chunk-70)
Distributive justice
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 4.89 [3.90, 5.87] 10.00 48 < .001
Just dist -0.39 [-0.59, -0.19] -3.99 48 < .001
(#tab:unnamed-chunk-71)
Interaction
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 4.54 [2.66, 6.43] 4.85 46 < .001
Just dist 0.32 [-0.18, 0.82] 1.30 46 .200
Just proc -0.15 [-0.56, 0.27] -0.72 46 .475
Just dist \(\times\) Just proc -0.09 [-0.18, 0.00] -1.93 46 .059

WPZS: Manager

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-73)
Procedural justice
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 5.87 [4.81, 6.92] 11.17 48 < .001
Just proc -0.61 [-0.81, -0.41] -6.24 48 < .001
(#tab:unnamed-chunk-74)
Distributive justice
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 5.27 [4.17, 6.37] 9.65 48 < .001
Just dist -0.51 [-0.72, -0.30] -4.88 48 < .001
(#tab:unnamed-chunk-75)
Interaction
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 7.74 [5.49, 9.99] 6.92 46 < .001
Just dist -0.59 [-1.13, -0.06] -2.22 46 .031
Just proc -0.85 [-1.41, -0.30] -3.08 46 .003
Just dist \(\times\) Just proc 0.08 [-0.02, 0.19] 1.56 46 .125

WPZS: Tradeoffs

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-77)
Procedural justice
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept -3.52 [-5.95, -1.08] -2.90 48 .006
Just proc 0.60 [0.15, 1.05] 2.70 48 .009
(#tab:unnamed-chunk-78)
Distributive justice
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept -3.49 [-5.66, -1.32] -3.23 48 .002
Just dist 0.61 [0.21, 1.02] 3.04 48 .004
(#tab:unnamed-chunk-79)
Interaction
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept -0.55 [-5.23, 4.13] -0.24 46 .813
Just dist -0.36 [-1.65, 0.93] -0.56 46 .576
Just proc -0.65 [-1.95, 0.64] -1.01 46 .316
Just dist \(\times\) Just proc 0.19 [-0.05, 0.43] 1.59 46 .120

Political ideology

Alright, let’s explore political ideology as a predictor. First, some correlations:

term ideo_gen ideo_soc ideo_econ
ideo_gen NA 0.8974813 0.8724160
ideo_soc 0.8974813 NA 0.7096104
ideo_econ 0.8724160 0.7096104 NA
WPZS_C_short -0.1085979 -0.0480711 -0.1007826
WPZS_M_short -0.0123028 0.0108648 -0.0798525
tradeoffs 0.2197275 0.0309315 0.2834323
union_att -0.5874541 -0.5647248 -0.6003114
union_inst -0.4149780 -0.3794706 -0.4443054
just_proc 0.1231759 0.0954983 0.1654965
just_dist 0.2624205 0.1913319 0.3076366
identity 0.1171984 0.0814081 0.1183239
marx -0.5288009 -0.4807464 -0.5397160

hmm, pretty weak correlations with our zero-sum measures. That’s pretty good if we want to show that its not just about ideology. Maybe unsurprisingly, union attitudes, union instrumentality, and marxist beliefs are strongly correlated with ideology. Ok, let’s run some analyses.

Voting intentions

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-82)
Interaction with WPZS Company
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 0.78 [0.11, 1.46] 2.33 46 .024
WPZS C short 0.07 [-0.12, 0.27] 0.73 46 .468
Ideo gen -0.11 [-0.28, 0.06] -1.32 46 .194
WPZS C short \(\times\) Ideo gen 0.01 [-0.04, 0.06] 0.26 46 .792

Note. Union Vote DV: No = 0; Yes = 1

 

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-84)
Interaction with WPZS Manager
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 0.86 [0.37, 1.36] 3.52 46 .001
WPZS M short 0.08 [-0.08, 0.24] 1.01 46 .316
Ideo gen -0.10 [-0.23, 0.03] -1.53 46 .132
WPZS M short \(\times\) Ideo gen 0.00 [-0.04, 0.04] -0.05 46 .957

Note. Union Vote DV: No = 0; Yes = 1

 

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-86)
Interaction with WPZS Tradeoffs
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 0.93 [0.61, 1.25] 5.86 46 < .001
Tradeoffs -0.04 [-0.17, 0.10] -0.57 46 .569
Ideo gen -0.10 [-0.18, -0.03] -2.75 46 .008
Tradeoffs \(\times\) Ideo gen 0.00 [-0.02, 0.03] 0.29 46 .772

Note. Union Vote DV: No = 0; Yes = 1

 

Union attitudes

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-88)
Interaction with WPZS Company
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 6.37 [4.60, 8.13] 7.26 46 < .001
WPZS C short 0.09 [-0.43, 0.60] 0.34 46 .734
Ideo gen -0.51 [-0.95, -0.07] -2.31 46 .025
WPZS C short \(\times\) Ideo gen 0.02 [-0.11, 0.15] 0.30 46 .767

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-90)
Interaction with WPZS Manager
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 5.60 [4.16, 7.05] 7.80 46 < .001
WPZS M short 0.40 [-0.07, 0.86] 1.73 46 .091
Ideo gen -0.27 [-0.65, 0.11] -1.41 46 .166
WPZS M short \(\times\) Ideo gen -0.08 [-0.20, 0.05] -1.21 46 .234

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-92)
Interaction with WPZS Tradeoffs
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 6.63 [5.81, 7.46] 16.23 46 < .001
Tradeoffs -0.15 [-0.50, 0.19] -0.89 46 .377
Ideo gen -0.43 [-0.62, -0.23] -4.46 46 < .001
Tradeoffs \(\times\) Ideo gen 0.03 [-0.05, 0.10] 0.71 46 .478

hmm, political ideology is just too strong a predictor of general union attitudes to see anything. It does look, though, like the effect on WPZS manager and tradeoffs is most pronounced for liberals than for conservatives. Not to over-interpret this, but maybe it’s because liberals more readily translate zero-sum beliefs at work to labor unions.

SES

let’s do all of this for SES as well.

term SES
SES NA
WPZS_C_short -0.0098908
WPZS_M_short -0.2896249
tradeoffs -0.0127799
union_att -0.1692036
union_inst -0.0451731
just_proc 0.1848856
just_dist 0.2151716
identity 0.2388429
marx -0.1830966

Not a lot here. I’m guessing it’s mostly because we don’t have a lot of variance in SES. Nonetheless, let’s explore SES in some analyses:

Voting intentions

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-95)
Interaction with WPZS Company
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 0.86 [-0.25, 1.98] 1.55 45 .127
WPZS C short -0.08 [-0.43, 0.27] -0.45 45 .653
SES -0.10 [-0.32, 0.12] -0.95 45 .346
WPZS C short \(\times\) SES 0.04 [-0.03, 0.11] 1.10 45 .279

Note. Union Vote DV: No = 0; Yes = 1

 

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-97)
Interaction with WPZS Manager
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 0.81 [-0.24, 1.85] 1.55 46 .129
WPZS M short 0.02 [-0.27, 0.30] 0.11 46 .914
SES -0.05 [-0.23, 0.13] -0.59 46 .560
WPZS M short \(\times\) SES 0.01 [-0.04, 0.06] 0.42 46 .678

Note. Union Vote DV: No = 0; Yes = 1

 

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-99)
Interaction with WPZS Tradeoffs
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 0.73 [0.23, 1.23] 2.94 45 .005
Tradeoffs -0.17 [-0.34, 0.01] -1.90 45 .064
SES -0.04 [-0.14, 0.06] -0.80 45 .430
Tradeoffs \(\times\) SES 0.03 [-0.01, 0.06] 1.60 45 .116

Note. Union Vote DV: No = 0; Yes = 1

 

Union attitudes

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-101)
Interaction with WPZS Company
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 3.31 [0.01, 6.61] 2.02 45 .050
WPZS C short 0.73 [-0.30, 1.76] 1.42 45 .162
SES 0.23 [-0.42, 0.88] 0.71 45 .479
WPZS C short \(\times\) SES -0.11 [-0.31, 0.09] -1.09 45 .283

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-103)
Interaction with WPZS Manager
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 4.49 [0.98, 8.00] 2.57 46 .013
WPZS M short 0.31 [-0.65, 1.27] 0.65 46 .517
SES 0.02 [-0.58, 0.63] 0.08 46 .936
WPZS M short \(\times\) SES -0.03 [-0.21, 0.14] -0.38 46 .704

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-105)
Interaction with WPZS Tradeoffs
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 6.43 [5.00, 7.87] 9.02 45 < .001
Tradeoffs -0.19 [-0.70, 0.32] -0.75 45 .457
SES -0.29 [-0.59, 0.00] -2.02 45 .049
Tradeoffs \(\times\) SES 0.02 [-0.08, 0.11] 0.33 45 .746

Not a lot here. hmm.

Union membership and Zero-sum beliefs

There are 17 people who are in a union and 36 more who would join a union if their workplace had one. Let’s compare them to the other participants.

members WPZS_C_short WPZS_M_short tradeoffs N
Current Members 3.571429 2.366667 0.4000000 17
Others 2.812500 2.229167 -0.4242424 97
Want-to-be Members 3.484849 4.192308 -0.5833333 36

oh, yeah, we’re seeing some differences here. Union members have highest zero-sum beliefs and would-be members are a close second. Not enough power here for stats, but this has some potential. We do similar trends for the voting intention question.

Workplace identity

There’s a lot here. To refresh out memory, this is the distribution:

Let’s see some analyses:

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-109)
Identity -> union vote
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 0.69 [0.47, 0.90] 6.20 148 < .001
Identity -0.01 [-0.05, 0.04] -0.31 148 .756

No effect on voting intentions. How about as a moderator?

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-110)
Interaction with WPZS_C
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 0.98 [-0.36, 2.33] 1.47 46 .148
Identity -0.13 [-0.35, 0.10] -1.12 46 .266
WPZS C short -0.06 [-0.35, 0.23] -0.44 46 .665
Identity \(\times\) WPZS C short 0.04 [-0.01, 0.09] 1.45 46 .153

pretty cool! Stronger effects for those who identify with their workplace. Let’s see some more:

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-112)
Interaction with WPZS_M
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 0.09 [-0.80, 0.98] 0.20 46 .846
Identity 0.06 [-0.10, 0.22] 0.74 46 .460
WPZS M short 0.11 [-0.09, 0.31] 1.10 46 .277
Identity \(\times\) WPZS M short 0.00 [-0.04, 0.05] 0.16 46 .873

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-114)
Interaction with Tradeoffs
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 0.40 [-0.01, 0.82] 1.97 46 .055
Identity 0.03 [-0.05, 0.12] 0.81 46 .424
Tradeoffs 0.01 [-0.14, 0.17] 0.19 46 .850
Identity \(\times\) Tradeoffs -0.01 [-0.05, 0.02] -0.80 46 .430

Mediation model: Org justice -> ZSB -> identity

a = -0.58 (p = 0)
b = -0.45 (p = 0)
c = 0.8 (p = 0)
c’ = 0.54 (p = 0)

a = -0.64 (p = 0)
b = -0.15 (p = 0.095)
c = 0.8 (p = 0)
c’ = 0.71 (p = 0)

a = 0.57 (p = 0)
b = 0.01 (p = 0.844)
c = 0.8 (p = 0)
c’ = 0.8 (p = 0)

a = -0.41 (p = 0)
b = -0.7 (p = 0)
c = 0.58 (p = 0)
c’ = 0.29 (p = 0)

a = -0.51 (p = 0)
b = -0.43 (p = 0)
c = 0.58 (p = 0)
c’ = 0.36 (p = 0)

a = 0.6 (p = 0)
b = 0.04 (p = 0.446)
c = 0.58 (p = 0)
c’ = 0.56 (p = 0)

Workplace Zero-Sum Company is doing a lot of explanatory work here. Grain of salt and all, but still, pretty cool.

Marxist work beliefs

Alright, let’s explore marxist work beliefs a little bit. Distribution for refresher:

ok, first I’ll just say that we got a bunch of marxists in our sample. Different project and all, but I’d guess that this would be pretty consistent across the population (for lower incomes / working class). Just for fun - let’s see the distribution broken down by “ideology.”

Yeah, even the “slightly conservative” and “conservative” labels are above the mid-point in MARXIST work beliefs. Love the class solidarity (doesn’t transalte to the ballot, ofc, but that’s part of the challenge). Anyway, sorry, I digress.

ZSB X Marx -> union voting

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-130)
Interaction with WPZS Company
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept -0.59 [-1.53, 0.34] -1.27 46 .210
WPZS C short 0.15 [-0.16, 0.46] 0.99 46 .327
Marx 0.21 [0.02, 0.40] 2.28 46 .027
WPZS C short \(\times\) Marx -0.02 [-0.08, 0.04] -0.62 46 .541

Note. Union Vote DV: No = 0; Yes = 1

 

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-132)
Interaction with WPZS Manager
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept -0.62 [-1.82, 0.58] -1.04 46 .306
WPZS M short 0.27 [-0.14, 0.68] 1.33 46 .189
Marx 0.22 [0.00, 0.44] 2.02 46 .049
WPZS M short \(\times\) Marx -0.04 [-0.11, 0.03] -1.06 46 .293

Note. Union Vote DV: No = 0; Yes = 1

 

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-134)
Interaction with WPZS Tradeoffs
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept -0.46 [-0.98, 0.07] -1.76 46 .085
Tradeoffs 0.13 [-0.16, 0.42] 0.91 46 .367
Marx 0.19 [0.09, 0.29] 3.95 46 < .001
Tradeoffs \(\times\) Marx -0.03 [-0.08, 0.02] -1.06 46 .295

Note. Union Vote DV: No = 0; Yes = 1