Broken Social Contract
Study 3: Analysis Report
Background
The purpose of Study 3 was to test if the relationship between a
broken social contract is and political discontent is a causal
relationship. To that end, we applied for the Time-sharing Experiments
for the Social Studies
(TESS)
federal research grant. After a rigorous peer review process and
collaborative study design, we partnered with
NORC to access the
nationally representative
AmeriSpeak
participant pool.
In a three-cell experimental design, participants listed, in open-text
form, five values that they believe guide the U.S. on paper (i.e., the
Constitution). Then, they indicated which of the values they listed is
most important to the U.S. on paper.
This value was then embedded into the experimental manipulation.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (1) the
promise kept condition; (2) the promise broken
condition; and (3) the control condition. Those in the
promise kept condition wrote 2-3 sentences about the ways in
which the U.S. is living up to its promise of that value. Participants
in the promise broken condition wrote 2-3 sentences about the
ways in which the U.S. is NOT living up to its promise of that value.
Participants in the control condition provided a definition of
that value.
Then, they completed five randomly-ordered DV’s: (1) anti-establishment
sentiment; (2) American pride; (3) trust in government; (4) satisfaction
with American democracy; and (5) support for radical change.
Hypotheses
- Participants in the promise broken condition will report
higher anti-establishment sentiment than participants
in the promise kept condition.
- Participants in the promise broken condition will report
lower trust in government than participants in the
promise kept condition.
- Participants in the promise broken condition will report
higher support for radical change than participants in
the promise kept condition.
We did not have specific hypotheses about the control condition. This is because it wasn’t clear, a-priori, whether the baseline of participants is that the promise of the social contract is broken, or whether it is that the promise is kept. Therefore, any analysis that includes all three conditions is exploratory. Any difference that emerges between one of the experimental conditions and the control condition helps us determine the direction in which the manipulation operates: does it increase or decrease baseline political discontent?
Additionally, we did not have an a-priori hypotheses about the effect of condition on American pride and satisfaction with American democracy. These two DV’s were added in consultation with TESS, on top of the three DV’s that we suggested after Studies 1 and 2. Therefore, any analysis we conduct with these DV’s is exploratory.
Data collection
Data collection was conducted by NORC between 11/18/2024 and 12/4/2024. After data collection, we manually excluded participants who did not comply with the manipulation instructions at all. Elgibility is reported below:
eligible_N <- df_bsc %>%
group_by(exclude) %>%
summarise(N = n()) %>%
ungroup() %>%
filter(exclude == 0) %>%
select(N) %>%
unname() %>%
unlist()
df_bsc %>%
group_by(exclude) %>%
summarise(N = n()) %>%
ungroup() %>%
mutate(Perc = round(100*(N/sum(N)),2)) %>%
ungroup() %>%
kbl() %>%
kable_styling(bootstrap_options = "hover",
full_width = F,
position = "left")| exclude | N | Perc |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1778 | 97.53 |
| 1 | 45 | 2.47 |
Great. That leaves us with 1778 eligible participants.
Demographics
Race and ethnicity
df_bsc_elg %>%
group_by(RACETHNICITY) %>%
summarise(N = n()) %>%
ungroup() %>%
mutate(Perc = round(100*(N/sum(N)),2)) %>%
ungroup() %>%
kbl() %>%
kable_styling(bootstrap_options = "hover",
full_width = F,
position = "left")| RACETHNICITY | N | Perc |
|---|---|---|
| asian/non-hisp | 65 | 3.66 |
| black/non-hisp | 200 | 11.25 |
| hisp | 358 | 20.13 |
| multi/non-hisp | 61 | 3.43 |
| other/non-hisp | 26 | 1.46 |
| white/non-hisp | 1068 | 60.07 |
Gender
df_bsc_elg %>%
group_by(GENDER) %>%
summarise(N = n()) %>%
ungroup() %>%
mutate(Perc = round(100*(N/sum(N)),2)) %>%
ungroup() %>%
kbl() %>%
kable_styling(bootstrap_options = "hover",
full_width = F,
position = "left")| GENDER | N | Perc |
|---|---|---|
| female | 903 | 50.79 |
| male | 875 | 49.21 |
Age
df_bsc_elg %>%
summarise(age_mean = round(mean(AGE,na.rm = T),2),
age_sd = round(sd(AGE,na.rm = T),2)) %>%
kbl() %>%
kable_styling(bootstrap_options = "hover",
full_width = F,
position = "left")| age_mean | age_sd |
|---|---|
| 48.45 | 17.48 |
Education
df_bsc_elg %>%
group_by(edu) %>%
summarise(N = n()) %>%
ungroup() %>%
mutate(Perc = round(100*(N/sum(N)),2)) %>%
ungroup() %>%
kbl() %>%
kable_styling(bootstrap_options = "hover",
full_width = F,
position = "left")| edu | N | Perc |
|---|---|---|
| less HS | 92 | 5.17 |
| HS | 327 | 18.39 |
| some coll | 727 | 40.89 |
| bachelors | 368 | 20.70 |
| masters | 264 | 14.85 |
Income
income_med <- median(df_bsc_elg$income_num,na.rm = T)
all_incomes <- c("under $5,000",
"$5,000 to $9,999",
"$10,000 to $14,999",
"$15,000 to $19,999",
"$20,000 to $24,999",
"$25,000 to $29,999",
"$30,000 to $34,999",
"$35,000 to $39,999",
"$40,000 to $49,999",
"$50,000 to $59,999",
"$60,000 to $74,999",
"$75,000 to $84,999",
"$85,000 to $99,999",
"$100,000 to $124,999",
"$125,000 to $149,999",
"$150,000 to $174,999",
"$175,000 to $199,999",
"$200,000 or more")
income_med_char <- all_incomes[income_med]
df_bsc_elg %>%
ggplot(aes(x = income)) +
geom_bar() +
theme(panel.grid.major = element_blank(),
panel.grid.minor = element_blank(),
panel.background = element_blank(),
axis.ticks = element_blank(),
axis.line = element_line(color = "grey66"),
axis.text.y = element_text(color = "black"),
axis.text.x = element_text(color = "black",
face = "bold"),
axis.title.x = element_blank(),
axis.title.y = element_blank()) +
coord_flip()
Median = $60,000 to $74,999
Measures
Value lists
Since its independence and onwards, the formation of the United
States as a sovereign country was based on a number of values, all of
which were enshrined in the constitution. This document has evolved
since it was first written.
When it comes to the PROMISE of the United States, what do you think are
the values that this country stands for?
Please list FIVE values.
Top 50 most mentioned:
df_bsc_elg %>%
select(PID,val_1:val_5) %>%
pivot_longer(-PID,
names_to = "val_num",
values_to = "value") %>%
filter(value != "98") %>%
filter(value != "") %>%
filter(!is.na(value)) %>%
mutate(value = str_to_lower(value)) %>%
group_by(value) %>%
summarise(N = n()) %>%
ungroup() %>%
mutate(Perc = round(100*(N/sum(N)),2)) %>%
ungroup() %>%
arrange(desc(N)) %>%
slice(1:50) %>%
dplyr::select(N,Perc,value) %>%
kbl() %>%
kable_styling(bootstrap_options = "hover",
position = "left") %>%
scroll_box(width = "100%", height = "400px")| N | Perc | value |
|---|---|---|
| 711 | 8.05 | freedom |
| 427 | 4.83 | equality |
| 357 | 4.04 | freedom of speech |
| 337 | 3.81 | liberty |
| 228 | 2.58 | justice |
| 225 | 2.55 | democracy |
| 220 | 2.49 | freedom of religion |
| 142 | 1.61 | independence |
| 134 | 1.52 | opportunity |
| 118 | 1.34 | pursuit of happiness |
| 95 | 1.08 | honesty |
| 94 | 1.06 | integrity |
| 79 | 0.89 | diversity |
| 77 | 0.87 | life |
| 76 | 0.86 | safety |
| 66 | 0.75 | family |
| 66 | 0.75 | free speech |
| 64 | 0.72 | right to bear arms |
| 60 | 0.68 | religious freedom |
| 59 | 0.67 | individualism |
| 59 | 0.67 | respect |
| 58 | 0.66 | fairness |
| 54 | 0.61 | money |
| 53 | 0.60 | unity |
| 48 | 0.54 | happiness |
| 47 | 0.53 | honor |
| 43 | 0.49 | prosperity |
| 42 | 0.48 | trust |
| 41 | 0.46 | love |
| 40 | 0.45 | justice for all |
| 39 | 0.44 | peace |
| 38 | 0.43 | equal rights |
| 37 | 0.42 | truth |
| 35 | 0.40 | loyalty |
| 32 | 0.36 | rights |
| 31 | 0.35 | rule of law |
| 30 | 0.34 | education |
| 30 | 0.34 | freedom of choice |
| 30 | 0.34 | god |
| 29 | 0.33 | right to vote |
| 27 | 0.31 | security |
| 26 | 0.29 | equal opportunity |
| 26 | 0.29 | religion |
| 25 | 0.28 | capitalism |
| 25 | 0.28 | protection |
| 24 | 0.27 | compassion |
| 24 | 0.27 | hard work |
| 22 | 0.25 | limited government |
| 22 | 0.25 | pride |
| 21 | 0.24 | equality for all |
Top Values
Participants were then shown the values that they listed, and were
asked, of these values, which one did they believe is most important to
the U.S.’s promise.
Top 50 most mentioned:
df_bsc_elg %>%
mutate(top_value_char = str_to_lower(top_value_char)) %>%
group_by(top_value_char) %>%
summarise(N = n()) %>%
ungroup() %>%
mutate(Perc = round(100*(N/sum(N)),2)) %>%
ungroup() %>%
arrange(desc(N)) %>%
dplyr::select(N,Perc,top_value_char) %>%
slice(1:50) %>%
kbl() %>%
kable_styling(bootstrap_options = "hover",
position = "left") %>%
scroll_box(width = "100%", height = "400px")| N | Perc | top_value_char |
|---|---|---|
| 431 | 24.24 | freedom |
| 93 | 5.23 | freedom of speech |
| 89 | 5.01 | democracy |
| 83 | 4.67 | liberty |
| 77 | 4.33 | equality |
| 39 | 2.19 | freedom of religion |
| 25 | 1.41 | independence |
| 22 | 1.24 | integrity |
| 22 | 1.24 | opportunity |
| 19 | 1.07 | honesty |
| 17 | 0.96 | god |
| 15 | 0.84 | pursuit of happiness |
| 14 | 0.79 | equal rights |
| 13 | 0.73 | free speech |
| 13 | 0.73 | life |
| 13 | 0.73 | money |
| 12 | 0.67 | equality for all |
| 11 | 0.62 | limited government |
| 10 | 0.56 | family |
| 10 | 0.56 | freedom of choice |
| 10 | 0.56 | justice |
| 10 | 0.56 | respect |
| 9 | 0.51 | economy |
| 9 | 0.51 | rights |
| 9 | 0.51 | rule of law |
| 8 | 0.45 | right to bear arms |
| 7 | 0.39 | freedom from oppression |
| 7 | 0.39 | love |
| 7 | 0.39 | safety |
| 6 | 0.34 | honor |
| 6 | 0.34 | prosperity |
| 6 | 0.34 | religious freedom |
| 6 | 0.34 | trust |
| 5 | 0.28 | capitalism |
| 5 | 0.28 | freedom for all |
| 5 | 0.28 | freedom from tyranny |
| 5 | 0.28 | freedom of speach |
| 5 | 0.28 | honest |
| 5 | 0.28 | individual rights |
| 5 | 0.28 | individualism |
| 5 | 0.28 | loyalty |
| 4 | 0.22 | checks and balances |
| 4 | 0.22 | democratic government |
| 4 | 0.22 | diversity |
| 4 | 0.22 | equity |
| 4 | 0.22 | fairness |
| 4 | 0.22 | justice for all |
| 4 | 0.22 | the pursuit of happiness |
| 4 | 0.22 | truth |
| 4 | 0.22 | unity |
Manipulation responses
Promise Kept Condition
In 2-3 sentences, please describe the ways in which the U.S. is living up to its promise of [TOP-VALUE].
df_bsc_elg %>%
filter(cond == "kept") %>%
mutate(response = iconv(response,from = "UTF-8", to = "ASCII", sub = "")) %>%
rename(top_value = top_value_char) %>%
select(PID,top_value,response) %>%
kbl() %>%
kable_styling(bootstrap_options = "hover",
position = "left") %>%
scroll_box(width = "100%", height = "400px")Promise Broken Condition
In 2-3 sentences, please describe the ways in which the U.S. is NOT living up to its promise of [TOP-VALUE].
df_bsc_elg %>%
filter(cond == "brkn") %>%
mutate(response = iconv(response,from = "UTF-8", to = "ASCII", sub = "")) %>%
rename(top_value = top_value_char) %>%
select(top_value,response) %>%
kbl() %>%
kable_styling(bootstrap_options = "hover",
position = "left") %>%
scroll_box(width = "100%", height = "400px")Control Condition
In 2-3 sentences, please define [TOP-VALUE].
df_bsc_elg %>%
filter(cond == "ctrl") %>%
mutate(response = iconv(response,from = "UTF-8", to = "ASCII", sub = "")) %>%
rename(top_value = top_value_char) %>%
select(top_value,response) %>%
kbl() %>%
kable_styling(bootstrap_options = "hover",
position = "left") %>%
scroll_box(width = "100%", height = "400px")Anti-Establishment Sentiment
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following
statements? (1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly
Agree)
1. The US’s economy is rigged to advantage the rich and powerful
2. Traditional politicians and parties don’t care about people like
me
3. Experts in this country don’t understand the lives of people like
me
4. Most of the time we can trust people in the government to do what is
right [R]
alpha = 0.7
df_bsc_elg %>%
ggplot(aes(x = antiest)) +
geom_histogram(fill = "lightblue",
color = NA,
binwidth = 1) +
scale_x_continuous(breaks = seq(1,7,1),
limits = c(0,8)) +
ylab("frequency") +
geom_vline(xintercept = mean(df_bsc_elg$antiest,na.rm = T),
color = "black",
linetype = "dashed",
size = 1.1) +
theme(panel.grid.major = element_blank(),
panel.grid.minor = element_blank(),
panel.background = element_blank(),
axis.ticks = element_blank(),
axis.line = element_line(color = "grey66"),
axis.text.y = element_text(color = "black"),
axis.text.x = element_text(color = "black",
face = "bold"),
axis.title.x = element_text(color = "black",
face = "bold"))
Trust in government
To what extent do you trust the government in Washington, across parties and administrations, to do what is right? (1 = Not at All to 7 = A Great Deal)
df_bsc_elg %>%
ggplot(aes(x = trustgov)) +
geom_histogram(fill = "lightblue",
color = NA,
binwidth = 1) +
scale_x_continuous(breaks = seq(1,7,1),
limits = c(0,8)) +
ylab("frequency") +
geom_vline(xintercept = mean(df_bsc_elg$trustgov,na.rm = T),
color = "black",
linetype = "dashed",
size = 1.1) +
theme(panel.grid.major = element_blank(),
panel.grid.minor = element_blank(),
panel.background = element_blank(),
axis.ticks = element_blank(),
axis.line = element_line(color = "grey66"),
axis.text.y = element_text(color = "black"),
axis.text.x = element_text(color = "black",
face = "bold"),
axis.title.x = element_text(color = "black",
face = "bold"))
Support for radical change
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
(1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree)
The way this country works needs to be radically changed.
df_bsc_elg %>%
ggplot(aes(x = radchange)) +
geom_histogram(fill = "lightblue",
color = NA,
binwidth = 1) +
scale_x_continuous(breaks = seq(1,7,1),
limits = c(0,8)) +
ylab("frequency") +
geom_vline(xintercept = mean(df_bsc_elg$radchange,na.rm = T),
color = "black",
linetype = "dashed",
size = 1.1) +
theme(panel.grid.major = element_blank(),
panel.grid.minor = element_blank(),
panel.background = element_blank(),
axis.ticks = element_blank(),
axis.line = element_line(color = "grey66"),
axis.text.y = element_text(color = "black"),
axis.text.x = element_text(color = "black",
face = "bold"),
axis.title.x = element_text(color = "black",
face = "bold"))
American Pride
How proud are you to be an American? (1 = Not at all Proud to 5 = Extremely Proud)
df_bsc_elg %>%
ggplot(aes(x = ampride)) +
geom_histogram(fill = "lightblue",
color = NA,
binwidth = 1) +
scale_x_continuous(breaks = seq(1,5,1),
limits = c(0,6)) +
ylab("frequency") +
geom_vline(xintercept = mean(df_bsc_elg$ampride,na.rm = T),
color = "black",
linetype = "dashed",
size = 1.1) +
theme(panel.grid.major = element_blank(),
panel.grid.minor = element_blank(),
panel.background = element_blank(),
axis.ticks = element_blank(),
axis.line = element_line(color = "grey66"),
axis.text.y = element_text(color = "black"),
axis.text.x = element_text(color = "black",
face = "bold"),
axis.title.x = element_text(color = "black",
face = "bold"))
Satisfaction with American democracy
How satisfied are you with the way democracy is working in the United States? (1 = Extremely Dissatisfied to 7 = Extremely Satisfied)
df_bsc_elg %>%
ggplot(aes(x = demsatis)) +
geom_histogram(fill = "lightblue",
color = NA,
binwidth = 1) +
scale_x_continuous(breaks = seq(1,7,1),
limits = c(0,8)) +
ylab("frequency") +
geom_vline(xintercept = mean(df_bsc_elg$demsatis,na.rm = T),
color = "black",
linetype = "dashed",
size = 1.1) +
theme(panel.grid.major = element_blank(),
panel.grid.minor = element_blank(),
panel.background = element_blank(),
axis.ticks = element_blank(),
axis.line = element_line(color = "grey66"),
axis.text.y = element_text(color = "black"),
axis.text.x = element_text(color = "black",
face = "bold"),
axis.title.x = element_text(color = "black",
face = "bold"))
Analysis
Confirmatory Analyses
First, I will conduct analyses that directly test our
hypotheses:
1. Participants in the promise broken condition will report
higher anti-establishment sentiment than participants
in the promise kept condition.
2. Participants in the promise broken condition will report
lower trust in government than participants in the
promise kept condition.
3. Participants in the promise broken condition will report
higher support for radical change than participants in
the promise kept condition.
Therefore, these analyses will only compare those two conditions without
adjusting for multiple comparisons.
Then, I will conduct exploratory analyses to examine the control
condition as well and the two other DV’s.
Anti-establishment sentiment
df_bsc_elg %>%
filter(cond != "ctrl") %>%
group_by(cond) %>%
summarise(N = n(),
mean = mean(antiest,na.rm = T),
sd = sd(antiest,na.rm = T)) %>%
ungroup() %>%
kbl() %>%
kable_styling(bootstrap_options = "hover",
full_width = F,
position = "left")| cond | N | mean | sd |
|---|---|---|---|
| brkn | 591 | 5.184322 | 1.14255 |
| kept | 574 | 4.926883 | 1.09532 |
Two-sample t-test:
m1 <- rstatix::t_test(antiest ~ cond,data = df_bsc_elg %>% filter(cond != "ctrl"),paired = F,detailed = T)
m2 <- rstatix::cohens_d(antiest ~ cond,data = df_bsc_elg %>% filter(cond != "ctrl"),paired = F)
d = round(m2$effsize,2)
m1 %>%
select(statistic,df,p,conf.low,conf.high) %>%
mutate(d = d) %>%
kbl() %>%
kable_styling(bootstrap_options = "hover",
full_width = F,
position = "left")| statistic | df | p | conf.low | conf.high | d |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.919688 | 1158.896 | 9.39e-05 | 0.1285772 | 0.3863015 | 0.23 |
Trust in government
df_bsc_elg %>%
filter(cond != "ctrl") %>%
group_by(cond) %>%
summarise(N = n(),
mean = mean(trustgov,na.rm = T),
sd = sd(trustgov,na.rm = T)) %>%
ungroup() %>%
kbl() %>%
kable_styling(bootstrap_options = "hover",
full_width = F,
position = "left")| cond | N | mean | sd |
|---|---|---|---|
| brkn | 591 | 2.852041 | 1.336251 |
| kept | 574 | 3.012281 | 1.355140 |
Two-sample t-test:
m1 <- rstatix::t_test(trustgov ~ cond,data = df_bsc_elg %>% filter(cond != "ctrl"),paired = F,detailed = T)
m2 <- rstatix::cohens_d(trustgov ~ cond,data = df_bsc_elg %>% filter(cond != "ctrl"),paired = F)
d = round(m2$effsize,2)
m1 %>%
select(statistic,df,p,conf.low,conf.high) %>%
mutate(d = d) %>%
kbl() %>%
kable_styling(bootstrap_options = "hover",
full_width = F,
position = "left")| statistic | df | p | conf.low | conf.high | d |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -2.025525 | 1153.648 | 0.043 | -0.3154561 | -0.0050237 | -0.12 |
Support for radical change
df_bsc_elg %>%
filter(cond != "ctrl") %>%
group_by(cond) %>%
summarise(N = n(),
mean = mean(radchange,na.rm = T),
sd = sd(radchange,na.rm = T)) %>%
ungroup() %>%
kbl() %>%
kable_styling(bootstrap_options = "hover",
full_width = F,
position = "left")| cond | N | mean | sd |
|---|---|---|---|
| brkn | 591 | 5.062925 | 1.608470 |
| kept | 574 | 4.836555 | 1.677208 |
Two-sample t-test:
m1 <- rstatix::t_test(radchange ~ cond,data = df_bsc_elg %>% filter(cond != "ctrl"),paired = F,detailed = T)
m2 <- rstatix::cohens_d(radchange ~ cond,data = df_bsc_elg %>% filter(cond != "ctrl"),paired = F)
d = round(m2$effsize,2)
m1 %>%
select(statistic,df,p,conf.low,conf.high) %>%
mutate(d = d) %>%
kbl() %>%
kable_styling(bootstrap_options = "hover",
full_width = F,
position = "left")| statistic | df | p | conf.low | conf.high | d |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.341842 | 1148.597 | 0.0194 | 0.0367136 | 0.416026 | 0.14 |
Exploratory Analyses
Anti-establishment sentiment
df_bsc_elg %>%
group_by(cond) %>%
summarise(N = n(),
mean = mean(antiest,na.rm = T),
sd = sd(antiest,na.rm = T)) %>%
ungroup() %>%
kbl() %>%
kable_styling(bootstrap_options = "hover",
full_width = F,
position = "left")| cond | N | mean | sd |
|---|---|---|---|
| brkn | 591 | 5.184322 | 1.142550 |
| ctrl | 613 | 4.940087 | 1.082434 |
| kept | 574 | 4.926883 | 1.095320 |
One-way ANOVA Omnibus Effect:
F(2, 1770) = 10.11, p < .001, \(\eta^2_p\) = .01
Tukey-HSD Post-Hoc Comparisons: (adjusting for multiple comparisons)
| diff | lwr | upr | p adj | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ctrl-brkn | -0.2442349 | -0.3940392 | -0.0944306 | 0.0003987 |
| kept-brkn | -0.2574394 | -0.4098607 | -0.1050181 | 0.0002281 |
| kept-ctrl | -0.0132045 | -0.1642724 | 0.1378634 | 0.9770924 |
Trust in Government
df_bsc_elg %>%
group_by(cond) %>%
summarise(N = n(),
mean = mean(trustgov,na.rm = T),
sd = sd(trustgov,na.rm = T)) %>%
ungroup() %>%
kbl() %>%
kable_styling(bootstrap_options = "hover",
full_width = F,
position = "left")| cond | N | mean | sd |
|---|---|---|---|
| brkn | 591 | 2.852041 | 1.336251 |
| ctrl | 613 | 3.018062 | 1.333279 |
| kept | 574 | 3.012281 | 1.355140 |
One-way ANOVA Omnibus Effect:
F(2, 1764) = 2.91, p = .055, \(\eta^2_p\) < .01
Tukey-HSD Post-Hoc Comparisons: (adjusting for multiple comparisons)
| diff | lwr | upr | p adj | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ctrl-brkn | 0.1660216 | -0.0158910 | 0.3479342 | 0.0820727 |
| kept-brkn | 0.1602399 | -0.0247045 | 0.3451843 | 0.1048161 |
| kept-ctrl | -0.0057817 | -0.1891498 | 0.1775864 | 0.9969887 |
Support for radical change
df_bsc_elg %>%
group_by(cond) %>%
summarise(N = n(),
mean = mean(radchange,na.rm = T),
sd = sd(radchange,na.rm = T)) %>%
ungroup() %>%
kbl() %>%
kable_styling(bootstrap_options = "hover",
full_width = F,
position = "left")| cond | N | mean | sd |
|---|---|---|---|
| brkn | 591 | 5.062925 | 1.608470 |
| ctrl | 613 | 4.707038 | 1.659824 |
| kept | 574 | 4.836555 | 1.677208 |
One-way ANOVA Omnibus Effect:
F(2, 1765) = 7.13, p < .001, \(\eta^2_p\) < .01
Tukey-HSD Post-Hoc Comparisons: (adjusting for multiple comparisons)
| diff | lwr | upr | p adj | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ctrl-brkn | -0.3558875 | -0.5792878 | -0.1324873 | 0.0005635 |
| kept-brkn | -0.2263698 | -0.4537775 | 0.0010379 | 0.0513667 |
| kept-ctrl | 0.1295177 | -0.0957752 | 0.3548106 | 0.3685290 |
American pride
df_bsc_elg %>%
group_by(cond) %>%
summarise(N = n(),
mean = mean(ampride,na.rm = T),
sd = sd(ampride,na.rm = T)) %>%
ungroup() %>%
kbl() %>%
kable_styling(bootstrap_options = "hover",
full_width = F,
position = "left")| cond | N | mean | sd |
|---|---|---|---|
| brkn | 591 | 3.417377 | 1.304196 |
| ctrl | 613 | 3.453048 | 1.269347 |
| kept | 574 | 3.461403 | 1.300028 |
One-way ANOVA Omnibus Effect:
F(2, 1761) = 0.19, p = .826, \(\eta^2_p\) < .01
Tukey-HSD Post-Hoc Comparisons: (adjusting for multiple comparisons)
| diff | lwr | upr | p adj | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ctrl-brkn | 0.0356713 | -0.1396235 | 0.2109661 | 0.8820131 |
| kept-brkn | 0.0440270 | -0.1340428 | 0.2220969 | 0.8308621 |
| kept-ctrl | 0.0083557 | -0.1682630 | 0.1849744 | 0.9932336 |
Satisfaction with American democracy
df_bsc_elg %>%
group_by(cond) %>%
summarise(N = n(),
mean = mean(demsatis,na.rm = T),
sd = sd(demsatis,na.rm = T)) %>%
ungroup() %>%
kbl() %>%
kable_styling(bootstrap_options = "hover",
full_width = F,
position = "left")| cond | N | mean | sd |
|---|---|---|---|
| brkn | 591 | 3.254237 | 1.735412 |
| ctrl | 613 | 3.415435 | 1.776998 |
| kept | 574 | 3.458988 | 1.752264 |
One-way ANOVA Omnibus Effect:
F(2, 1769) = 2.21, p = .110, \(\eta^2_p\) < .01
Tukey-HSD Post-Hoc Comparisons: (adjusting for multiple comparisons)
| diff | lwr | upr | p adj | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ctrl-brkn | 0.1611979 | -0.0766393 | 0.3990350 | 0.2502706 |
| kept-brkn | 0.2047505 | -0.0367351 | 0.4462361 | 0.1152253 |
| kept-ctrl | 0.0435526 | -0.1960698 | 0.2831751 | 0.9046851 |
