1 / 6

Near and Dear? Evaluating the Impact of Neighbor Diversity on Inter-Religious Attitudes

Discussion of. Near and Dear? Evaluating the Impact of Neighbor Diversity on Inter-Religious Attitudes. by Sharon Barnhardt. Gigi Foster UNSW Development Workshop 2011. What I love. The experimental design in a great institutional context Interviewing children The IAT

radley
Télécharger la présentation

Near and Dear? Evaluating the Impact of Neighbor Diversity on Inter-Religious Attitudes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Discussion of Near and Dear? Evaluating the Impact of Neighbor Diversity on Inter-Religious Attitudes by Sharon Barnhardt Gigi Foster UNSW Development Workshop 2011

  2. What I love • The experimental design in a great institutional context • Interviewing children • The IAT • You set up your story well

  3. Issues on interpretation • The interaction versus preferences story is not convincing • Beliefs about others versus empathy toward others are different phenomena. You only measure beliefs • Rather: is the interaction effect on beliefs impeded or accelerated by preference changes? • My prior is that this is simply Bayesian updating, and the Hindu-Muslim difference has a clear cause – and p. 29 discourse on other causes is not nearly as plausible • Interpretation as “convergence” is problematic • Correct beliefs about each group may not be the same. No measure of the truth about each group • If you have other survey measures that could proxy for truth about each person’s trustworthiness, cheating, etc: use them to test the Bayesian updating story! Even variance in beliefs about own group could be used for this. • Combine a parametric “self-serving bias” assumption with beliefs about own group?

  4. Other points • Theory bits would benefit from inclusion under a single conceptual rubric. E.g., what are “the conditions of Allport’s (1954) ‘contact theory?’” How do they relate to the interaction vs backlash story, vs to the social status story of Tropp and Pettigrew, vs to simple Bayesian updating? • Actual floorplans would be helpful (common cooking heat source? Shared toilets, walls, or hallways?) – also enabling more detailed examination of proximity effects • Why group 3/4 groups together with 4/4 groups? • Where did people live from 2005 to 2007? • The friendship modelling should be explained better in the text (e.g., number of obs, “natural friendliness” term). It also goes on way too long

  5. Minor stuff • Careful in word choice: beliefs about X by Y; “improvements in beliefs” is vague (better, or closer to reality? Cf beliefs of Muslims in all-Muslim groups about Hindus) • Need more info about the Hindu “reservation category” and affirmative action • Cite Sharif and blue eyes-brown eyes studies • The house size is HUGE! Is that for real? • People “still in line” for housing assignment may have less enlightened preferences • Run the main model separately for Hindus • How often did the participant object to closing the door? • IAT: careful: good associations RELATIVE to the other group • People over 50 are excluded - > generalizability question

  6. Overall feel • Interesting and important question, and terrific data • More clarity about the exact phenomenon being tested/confirmed, with a link to an overarching theoretical framework, would be a big improvement • Shorten the friendship-formation section and put more emphasis on policy relevance

More Related