Table A.1: Experiment Sample Distribution and National Demographic Benchmarks Latino Decisions Sample, Study 1 (%)

Similar documents
TOPLINE RESULTS University of Delaware, Center for Political Communication NATIONAL AGENDA POLL HOLD FOR RELEASE 6:30AM OCTOBER 6, 2010

CLACLS. Demographic, Economic, and Social Transformations in Bronx Community District 5:

Online Appendix 1: Treatment Stimuli

LATINOS IN AMERICA: A Demographic Profile

CLACLS. A Profile of Latino Citizenship in the United States: Demographic, Educational and Economic Trends between 1990 and 2013

Hispanic Employment in Construction

Redefining America: Findings from the 2006 Latino National Survey

Characteristics of People. The Latino population has more people under the age of 18 and fewer elderly people than the non-hispanic White population.

Labor Force Characteristics by Race and Ethnicity, 2015

Economic assimilation of Mexican and Chinese immigrants in the United States: is there wage convergence?

Employment Among US Hispanics: a Tale of Three Generations

Community College Research Center

LATINO DATA PROJECT. Astrid S. Rodríguez Ph.D. Candidate, Educational Psychology. Center for Latin American, Caribbean, and Latino Studies

Latinos in Massachusetts Selected Areas: Framingham

Share of Children of Immigrants Ages Five to Seventeen, by State, Share of Children of Immigrants Ages Five to Seventeen, by State, 2008

Pulling Open the Sticky Door

Demographic, Economic and Social Transformations in Bronx Community District 4: High Bridge, Concourse and Mount Eden,

NUMBERS, FACTS AND TRENDS SHAPING THE WORLD FOR RELEASE OCTOBER 29, 2014 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON THIS REPORT:

Understanding Racial Inequity in Alachua County

State Politics & Policy Quarterly. Online Appendix for:

Socio-Economic Mobility Among Foreign-Born Latin American and Caribbean Nationalities in New York City,

Extrapolated Versus Actual Rates of Violent Crime, California and the United States, from a 1992 Vantage Point

NBC News/WSJ/Marist Poll Iowa September 20, 2012 Presidential Election Questionnaire

Unequal Recovery, Labor Market Polarization, Race, and 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Maoyong Fan and Anita Alves Pena 1

Characteristics of the Ethnographic Sample of First- and Second-Generation Latin American Immigrants in the New York to Philadelphia Urban Corridor

Hispanic Attitudes on Economy and Global Warming June 2016

Chapter 8. Political Participation and Voting

Cultural Frames: An Analytical Model

New Research on Gender in Political Psychology Conference. Unpacking the Gender Gap: Analysis of U.S. Latino Immigrant Generations. Christina Bejarano

LATINOS NATIONALLY SAY THEY ARE BETTER OFF TODAY THAN FOUR YEARS AGO

Inside the 2012 Latino Electorate

Dominicans in New York City

Florida Latino Voters Survey Findings

Being Latino-American: Experience of Discrimination and Oppression. Ashley O Donnell CNGC 529 Dr. Rawlins Summer Session I 2013

A Vote of No Confidence: How Americans View Presidential Appointees

Table XX presents the corrected results of the first regression model reported in Table

Online Supporting Information for: Constitutional Qualms or Politics as Usual? The Factors Shaping Public Support for Unilateral Action

Supporting Information for Do Perceptions of Ballot Secrecy Influence Turnout? Results from a Field Experiment

Astrid S. Rodríguez Fellow, Center for Latin American, Caribbean & Latino Studies. Center for Latin American, Caribbean & Latino Studies

BELIEF IN A JUST WORLD AND PERCEPTIONS OF FAIR TREATMENT BY POLICE ANES PILOT STUDY REPORT: MODULES 4 and 22.

THE VANISHING CENTER OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY APPENDIX

Determinants of Return Migration to Mexico Among Mexicans in the United States

GENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES

Immigrant Legalization

The Latino Electorate in 2010: More Voters, More Non-Voters

NATIONAL: PUBLIC SAYS LET DREAMERS STAY

Peruvians in the United States

Experiments in Election Reform: Voter Perceptions of Campaigns Under Preferential and Plurality Voting

Mexicans in New York City, : A Visual Data Base

Transitions to Work for Racial, Ethnic, and Immigrant Groups

Electoral Reform Questionnaire Field Dates: October 12-18, 2016

Center for American Progress Action Fund Survey of the Florida Puerto Rican Electorate

South Americans Chinese

Salvadorans. in Boston

Millsaps College-Chism Strategies State of the State Survey: Voters Back Early Voting, Automatic Registration

The effect of age at immigration on the earnings of immigrants: Estimates from a two-stage model

Tell us what you think. Provide feedback to help make American Community Survey data more useful for you.

Prior research finds that IRT policies increase college enrollment and completion rates among undocumented immigrant young adults.

1. The Relationship Between Party Control, Latino CVAP and the Passage of Bills Benefitting Immigrants

I ll marry you if you get me a job Marital assimilation and immigrant employment rates

Brockton and Abington

ASSIMILATION AND LANGUAGE

National Survey: Super PACs, Corruption, and Democracy

RRH Elections Mississippi Senate Poll: Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R) leads ex-rep. Mike Espy (D) 54% to 44%


This analysis confirms other recent research showing a dramatic increase in the education level of newly

Wide Partisan Gaps in U.S. Over How Far the Country Has Come on Gender Equality

THE 2004 NATIONAL SURVEY OF LATINOS: POLITICS AND CIVIC PARTICIPATION

Wide Partisan Gaps in U.S. Over How Far the Country Has Come on Gender Equality

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Economic and Cultural Drivers of Immigrant Support Worldwide. Online Appendix

Nebraska s Foreign-Born and Hispanic/Latino Population

THE EFFECTS OF AGE AND POLITICAL EXPOSURE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF PARTY IDENTIFICATION AMONG ASIAN AMERICAN AND LATINO IMMIGRANTS IN THE UNITED STATES

Transnational Ties of Latino and Asian Americans by Immigrant Generation. Emi Tamaki University of Washington

Integrating Latino Immigrants in New Rural Destinations. Movement to Rural Areas

REPORT ON POLITICAL ATTITUDES & ENGAGEMENT

U.S. Abortion Attitudes Closely Divided

How Have Hispanics Fared in the Jobless Recovery?

FOR RELEASE MARCH 20, 2018

DATA PROFILES OF IMMIGRANTS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Immigrants are playing an increasingly

FOR RELEASE October 18, 2018

FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY FEBRUARY 17 at 6:00 a.m. ET

The Impact of Legal Status on Immigrants Earnings and Human. Capital: Evidence from the IRCA 1986

Introduction. Background

HISPANIC MEDIA SURVEY Topline - National

2016 Appointed Boards and Commissions Diversity Survey Report

Marquette Law School Poll September 15-18, Results for all items among Likely Voters

Appendix C: Hispanic Survey and Asian-American Survey Toplines

NEW JERSEY: DEM HAS SLIGHT EDGE IN CD11

Bush 2004 Gains among Hispanics Strongest with Men, And in South and Northeast, Annenberg Data Show

Attitudes toward Immigration: Findings from the Chicago- Area Survey

How Incivility in Partisan Media (De-)Polarizes. the Electorate

Ethnic minority poverty and disadvantage in the UK

Due to the threat of detention and deportation, my child feels:

Appendix. This appendix provides detailed information on the multiple data sources and methodology used to obtain the ndings discussed in the text.

Texas Community Development Block Grant Program. Survey Methodology Manual. Texas Department of Agriculture Office of Rural Affairs

OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER. City Services Auditor 2005 Taxi Commission Survey Report

Illegal Immigration: How Should We Deal With It?

Demographic, Economic, and Social Transformations in Brooklyn Community District 4: Bushwick,

Transcription:

Online Appendix Table A.1: Experiment Sample Distribution and National Demographic Benchmarks Latino Decisions Sample, Study 1 (%) YouGov Sample, Study 2 (%) American Community Survey 2014 (%) Gender Female 50 60 49 Male 50 40 51 Median Age 32 39 28 Immigrant Generation First Generation 36 33 37 Second Generation 36 47 30 Third Generation+ 28 20 33 Educational Attainment Less than a high school diploma 8 8 20 High school diploma or equivalent 24 36 15 Some College 40 32 12 Bachelor's degree or more 29 23 7 Household Income (ACS categories in parentheses) under $16,999 (ACS: under $14,999) 15 22 17 $17,000-$34,999 (ACS: $15,000-$34,999) 26 29 30 $35,000-$69,000 (ACS: $35,000-$74,999) 34 28 33 $70,000-$119,000 (ACS: $75,000-18 14 9 $99,000) $120,000 or more (ACS: $100,000 or 7 7 12 more) National Group Origins Mexican 44 45 63 Puerto Rican 11 19 9 Cuban 6 8 4 Other 39 25 24 Partisanship (with leaners being probed) Democrats 57 50 52 Independents 12 31 20 Republicans 27 20 23 Notes: With the exception of age being reported as a median, the figures above are based on percentages. The first sample demographics are from Study 1 with 1,015 Latino adult respondents gathered through Latino Decisions, whereas the second sample demographics are from Study 2 and were gathered through YouGov. The final column includes figures from the American Community Survey 2014, though the national partisanship figures are based on a 1

recent USA Today/Gallup (from April 16-May 31, 2016), and they are not excluded to those who are registered to vote. 2

Table A.2: OLS Models, Emotion Manipulation Check of Threat (Fear) and Opportunity (Hope) Model 1 Model 2 Hope Fear Threat Condition -0.068** 0.037 (0.032) (0.034) Opportunity Condition -0.038 0.023 (0.033) (0.035) Coupled Condition -0.049-0.023 (0.032) (0.034) Highest Educ. Degree (7-cat., 0-1) 0.004 0.040 (0.040) (0.043) Household Income level (5-cat., 0-1) -0.007 0.004 (0.045) (0.048) Age -0.062-0.081 (0.058) (0.061) Immigrant Generation (3-cat., 0-1)(1= 1 st generation) -0.027-0.001 Partisanship (7-cat.)(1= Strong Republicans) (0.030) (0.032) 0.002-0.055 (0.040) (0.042) Gender 0.009 0.028 (0.024) (0.026) Cognitive Threat (6 cat.) -0.088** 0.049 (0.039) (0.041) Constant 0.639*** 0.514*** (0.053) (0.057) Observations 1,001 1,001 R-squared 0.013 0.010 3

Table A.3: Study 1, OLS Models Estimating Cognitive Perceptions of Threat (1) and Opportunity (0) by Treatments Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Cognitive Threat Manipulation Check, 7 cat. (Base = Control) Cognitive Threat Manipulation Check, 6 cat. (Base = Control) Cognitive Threat Manipulation Check, 6 cat. (Base = Threat) Threat Condition 0.092*** 0.119*** - (0.026) (0.032) - Opportunity Condition -0.172*** -0.216*** -0.335*** (0.026) (0.032) (0.032) Coupled Condition -0.003 0.003-0.116*** (0.026) (0.032) (0.032) Control Condition - - -0.119*** - - (0.032) Constant 0.555*** 0.564*** 0.683*** (0.018) (0.023) (0.022) Observations 1,001 756 756 R-squared 0.097 0.131 0.131 4

Figure A.1: Study 1, Predicted Probabilities of the Perception that Policy Proposal Will Make Lives of Unauthorized Immigrants Easier or Harder by Treatments 1.000 Predicted Probabilities of Cognitive Perception Manipulation Check (6 cat.) 0.900 0.800 0.700 0.600 0.500 0.400 0.300 0.200 0.100 0.564 + 0.683*** 0.348*** + 0.567 + 0.000 Control Threat Opportunity Coupled Notes: Predicted probabilities are derived from OLS regression estimates from Model 2 of Appendix Table B-1 (n=1,001). Predicted Probabilities based on the 6-category measure of the cognitive perception of threat and opportunity, ranging from 0 to 1, with 1 meaning current proposals will make life a great harder for undocumented immigrants and 0 meaning currents proposals will make life a great deal easier for undocumented immigrants. Relative to the nonpolitical control condition, all probabilities are based on the following p-values using a twotailed test: *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. + Signifies the predicted probabilities that are statistically distinguishable from the threat condition at the p<.01 level (Model 3). 5

Table A.4: Study 1, OLS Regressions, Main Effects of Treatments Estimating Non- Electoral Forms of Political Participation with Added Demographic Controls Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Join a March (Baseline = Control) Talk About Politics (Baseline = Control) Volunteer for Organization (Baseline = Control) Participation Scale (Baseline = Control) Threat Condition 0.039 0.029 0.021 0.029 (0.028) (0.029) (0.028) (0.024) Opportunity Condition 0.023 0.032 0.013 0.023 (0.028) (0.029) (0.028) (0.024) Coupled Condition 0.051* 0.069** 0.028 0.049** (0.028) (0.029) (0.028) (0.024) Gender -0.036* 0.007-0.006-0.012 (0.021) (0.022) (0.021) (0.018) Highest Educ. Degree (7-cat., 0-1) 0.024 (0.036) 0.089** (0.036) 0.072** (0.035) 0.062** (0.031) Household Income level (5-cat., 0-1) -0.030 (0.040) -0.016 (0.041) -0.043 (0.039) -0.030 (0.035) Age -0.425*** -0.264*** -0.414*** -0.367*** (0.051) (0.052) (0.050) (0.044) Immigrant Generation (3-cat., 0-1)(1=1 st gen) -0.105*** (0.026) -0.113*** (0.027) -0.161*** (0.026) -0.126*** (0.023) Partisanship (7-cat.) (1=Strong Republicans) 0.164*** (0.035) 0.177*** (0.036) 0.150*** (0.034) 0.164*** (0.030) Constant 0.380*** 0.423*** 0.420*** 0.408*** (0.043) (0.044) (0.042) (0.037) Observations 1,001 1,001 1,001 1,001 R-squared 0.109 0.080 0.122 0.128 6

Table A.5: Study 1, OLS Regressions, Main Effects of Treatments Estimating Intent to Vote with Added Demographic Controls Model 1 Intent to Vote (Baseline = Control) Threat Condition -0.027 (0.024) Opportunity Condition -0.041* (0.024) Coupled Condition -0.015 (0.024) Gender -0.021 (0.018) Highest Educ. Degree 0.113*** (7-cat., 0-1) (0.031) Household Income level 0.029 (5-cat., 0-1) (0.034) Age 0.208*** (0.042) Immigrant Generation 0.047** (3-cat., 0-1)(1= 1 st gen) (0.023) Partisanship (7-cat.) 0.113*** (1=Strong Republicans) (0.028) Constant 0.647*** (0.038) Observations 789 R-squared 0.078 7

Table A.6: Study 1, Logit Models, Main Effects of Treatments Estimating Sent Postcard with Added Demographic Controls Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Postcard Sent (Baseline = Control) Postcard Sent (Baseline = Threat) Postcard Sent (Baseline = Opportunity) Threat Condition 0.024-0.010 (0.187) - (0.187) Opportunity Condition 0.014-0.010 - (0.186) (0.187) - Coupled Condition 0.483** 0.459** 0.469** (0.194) (0.194) (0.193) Control Condition -0.207-0.207-0.207 (0.143) (0.143) (0.143) Gender 0.334 0.334 0.334 (0.240) (0.240) (0.240) Highest Educ. Degree (7-cat., 0-1) 0.189 (0.269) 0.189 (0.269) 0.189 (0.269) Household Income level (5-cat., 0-1) -0.516 (0.341) -0.516 (0.341) -0.516 (0.341) Age -0.504*** -0.504*** -0.504*** (0.178) (0.178) (0.178) Immigrant Generation (3-cat., 0-1)(1= 1 st generation) 0.072 (0.235) 0.072 (0.235) 0.072 (0.235) Partisanship (7-cat.) (1=Strong Republicans) - - -0.024 (0.187) -0.014 (0.186) Constant 0.660** 0.684** 0.674** (0.289) (0.291) (0.280) Observations 1,001 1,001 1,001 8

Table A.7: Study 2, Complete Results Main Effects of Treatments Estimating Non- Electoral Forms of Political Participation with Full Sample Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 March Volunteer Talk Donate Boycott Participation Scale (OLS) Sent Postcard Fear Condition 0.23 0.05-0.01-0.17 0.44 0.09 0.72** (0.27) (0.27) (0.27) (0.26) (0.27) (0.24) (0.34) Hope Condition -0.20-0.40-0.42-0.28-0.36-0.38 0.14 (0.28) (0.27) (0.28) (0.27) (0.29) (0.25) (0.32) Fear and Hope Condition 0.09-0.07-0.12-0.18 0.28-0.03 0.13 (0.27) (0.26) (0.27) (0.26) (0.27) (0.24) (0.31) Pride and Hope Condition 0.05-0.12 0.22-0.13 0.62** 0.06 0.16 (0.28) (0.28) (0.29) (0.27) (0.28) (0.26) (0.32) Hope and Fear Condition -0.15-0.04-0.20-0.29 0.20-0.07-0.10 (0.28) (0.27) (0.28) (0.27) (0.28) (0.25) (0.30) Fear and Pride Condition -0.06-0.04-0.06-0.25-0.16-0.18 0.15 (0.28) (0.27) (0.28) (0.27) (0.28) (0.25) (0.31) Gender -0.15-0.07-0.47*** -0.10-0.30* -0.21-0.63*** (0.16) (0.16) (0.16) (0.15) (0.16) (0.14) (0.19) Immigrant Generation -0.16** -0.34*** -0.21*** -0.10-0.09-0.20*** -0.00 (0.08) (0.08) (0.08) (0.07) (0.08) (0.07) (0.09) Highest Educ. Degree (7- cat., 0-1) 0.90*** 0.74*** 0.81*** 0.59** 0.63** 0.78*** 0.63* (0.29) (0.29) (0.30) (0.28) (0.29) (0.26) (0.35) Household Income level (5-cat., 0-1) -0.19-0.23 0.32 0.02 0.10 0.01 0.73** (0.29) (0.28) (0.29) (0.28) (0.29) (0.26) (0.35) Age -0.02*** -0.02*** -0.02*** -0.01* -0.02*** -0.02*** -0.01 (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.00) (0.01) (0.00) (0.01) Mexican -0.19-0.25-0.41 0.28 0.06-0.03-0.11 (0.43) (0.43) (0.42) (0.40) (0.42) (0.37) (0.47) Puerto Rican -0.46-0.60-0.18-0.13-0.37-0.27 0.06 (0.46) (0.46) (0.44) (0.42) (0.45) (0.39) (0.49) Cuban -0.56-0.66-0.57-0.06-0.08-0.35-0.32 (0.48) (0.46) (0.45) (0.44) (0.46) (0.40) (0.50) Other Latino -0.39-0.37-0.34 0.19-0.26-0.16-0.13 (0.43) (0.42) (0.41) (0.39) (0.42) (0.37) (0.46) Party ID (Baseline =Strong, Mod, Lean Republicans) Independents 1.12*** 0.35 0.47** 0.86*** 0.86*** 0.65*** -0.44* (0.27) (0.24) (0.22) (0.25) (0.26) (0.21) (0.26) Democrats (Strong/Mod/Lean) 1.76*** 1.08*** 1.36*** 1.46*** 1.57*** 1.49*** 0.66*** (0.25) (0.22) (0.21) (0.22) (0.24) (0.18) (0.25) 9

Constant -0.33 1.16* 1.25** -0.87-0.92 2.50*** 1.26* (0.62) (0.60) (0.60) (0.58) (0.62) (0.53) (0.69) Observations 850 846 844 847 839 826 847 R-squared 0.13 10

Table A.8: Study 2, Full Results for Main Effects of Treatments Estimating Non-Electoral Forms of Political Participation Among Democrats Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 March Volunteer Talk Donate Boycott Participation Scale (OLS) Sent Postcard Fear Condition 0.47 0.26 0.55 0.48 0.50 0.53 1.45* (0.37) (0.38) (0.42) (0.37) (0.37) (0.35) (0.81) Hope Condition -0.03 0.05-0.11-0.16-0.47-0.19-0.34 (0.37) (0.37) (0.40) (0.36) (0.37) (0.35) (0.53) Fear and Hope Condition 0.44 0.63* 0.88** 0.44 0.50 0.63* -0.39 (0.37) (0.38) (0.44) (0.36) (0.37) (0.35) (0.51) Pride and Hope Condition 0.04 0.12 0.62-0.06 0.57 0.27-0.07 (0.38) (0.39) (0.44) (0.38) (0.39) (0.37) (0.54) Hope and Fear Condition 0.24 0.39 0.41 0.28 0.46 0.43-0.18 (0.37) (0.38) (0.42) (0.37) (0.38) (0.36) (0.53) Fear and Pride Condition -0.26-0.08 0.25-0.18-0.43-0.23-0.18 (0.37) (0.38) (0.40) (0.37) (0.38) (0.36) (0.52) Gender 0.06 0.11-0.32-0.03-0.17-0.01-0.39 (0.22) (0.22) (0.25) (0.21) (0.22) (0.21) (0.33) Immigrant Generation -0.16-0.32*** -0.15 0.00-0.14-0.17* 0.16 (0.10) (0.11) (0.12) (0.10) (0.11) (0.10) (0.15) Highest Educ. Degree (7- cat., 0-1) 1.02*** 1.01** 1.09** 0.93** 0.88** 1.08*** 1.36** (0.38) (0.39) (0.44) (0.38) (0.38) (0.36) (0.58) Household Income level (5-cat., 0-1) 0.28-0.01 0.87* 0.19 0.38 0.36 0.74 (0.39) (0.40) (0.45) (0.38) (0.39) (0.37) (0.59) Age -0.02*** -0.03*** -0.01-0.00-0.02** -0.02*** -0.00 (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) Mexican -0.87-0.84-1.09-0.46-0.17-0.66-1.26* (0.67) (0.68) (0.69) (0.64) (0.65) (0.64) (0.73) Puerto Rican -1.29* -1.31* -1.14-1.13-0.83-1.20* -1.47* (0.71) (0.72) (0.73) (0.69) (0.70) (0.68) (0.82) Cuban -1.18* -1.44** -1.59** -0.95-0.60-1.26* -1.94** (0.71) (0.72) (0.74) (0.69) (0.70) (0.68) (0.78) Other Latino -0.96-1.09-1.13* -0.58-0.72-0.90-1.36* (0.66) (0.67) (0.68) (0.63) (0.65) (0.63) (0.71) Constant 1.53* 2.46*** 2.11** 0.31 0.85 3.97*** 2.48** (0.83) (0.85) (0.90) (0.81) (0.82) (0.79) (1.04) Observations 430 428 426 429 425 419 430 R-squared 0.08 11

Table A.9: Study 2, Full Results for Main Effects of Treatments Estimating Non-Electoral Forms of Political Participation Among Republicans Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 March Volunteer Talk Donate Boycott Participati on Scale (OLS) Sent Postcard Fear Condition -0.19 0.33-0.62-0.73 0.73-0.18 1.09 (0.89) (0.62) (0.57) (0.67) (0.83) (0.44) (0.69) Hope Condition 0.10-0.75-1.10* -0.13 0.55-0.36 1.99** (0.93) (0.74) (0.63) (0.66) (0.94) (0.48) (0.91) Fear and Hope Condition 0.17-0.69-1.33** -1.55** 0.82-0.56 1.15 (0.80) (0.67) (0.62) (0.77) (0.80) (0.45) (0.71) Pride and Hope Condition -0.32-0.93-0.65-1.56* 0.82-0.53 0.52 (0.99) (0.80) (0.63) (0.89) (0.87) (0.49) (0.70) Hope and Fear Condition 0.12-1.38-1.30-1.64 0.18-0.68 0.25 (1.31) (1.18) (0.83) (1.17) (1.29) (0.59) (0.82) Fear and Pride Condition 0.78 0.44-0.54-0.31 0.99 0.13 0.66 (0.81) (0.62) (0.59) (0.64) (0.82) (0.46) (0.65) Gender -0.91* -0.11-0.23-0.16-0.69-0.30-0.15 (0.55) (0.42) (0.37) (0.44) (0.49) (0.28) (0.44) Immigrant Generation -0.22-0.51** -0.51** -0.31 0.15-0.25* 0.09 (0.29) (0.23) (0.20) (0.24) (0.25) (0.15) (0.24) Highest Educ. Degree (7- cat., 0-1) 1.72* 0.03 0.63-0.34 0.79 0.36 0.53 (0.98) (0.73) (0.64) (0.79) (0.84) (0.49) (0.80) Household Income level (5-cat., 0-1) -2.11** -0.94-0.39-0.08-1.01-0.67-0.50 (1.04) (0.79) (0.69) (0.85) (0.89) (0.53) (0.84) Age -0.03** -0.03** -0.03** -0.03** -0.03* -0.02*** 0.01 (0.02) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) Mexican -13.47-13.27-0.08 0.71-14.51-0.19-1.37 (1,782.09) (968.16) (1.10) (1.42) (1,583.91) (0.85) (1.20) Puerto Rican -14.01-14.37 0.33 0.21-15.41-0.37-2.37* (1,782.09) (968.16) (1.10) (1.40) (1,583.91) (0.86) (1.23) Cuban -14.29-13.56-0.25 0.36-14.55-0.41-0.42 (1,782.09) (968.16) (1.01) (1.27) (1,583.91) (0.79) (1.06) Other Latino -14.45-13.33-0.18 0.48-14.87-0.40-1.21 (1,782.09) (968.16) (1.07) (1.38) (1,583.91) (0.83) (1.18) Constant 14.57 15.65 3.27** 1.28 13.66 3.87*** 1.29 (1,782.09) (968.16) (1.42) (1.71) (1,583.91) (1.07) (1.53) Observations 166 165 166 166 165 164 164 R-squared 0.12 12

Table A.10: Study 2, Full Results for Main Effects of Treatments Estimating Non-Electoral Forms of Political Participation Among Independents Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 March Volunteer Talk Donate Boycott Participation Scale (OLS) Sent Postcard Fear Condition 0.09-0.28-0.18-0.93* 0.44-0.29 0.60 (0.48) (0.48) (0.49) (0.51) (0.49) (0.47) (0.52) Hope Condition -0.68-1.17** -0.46-0.57-0.34-0.74-0.13 (0.55) (0.57) (0.53) (0.53) (0.56) (0.51) (0.55) Fear and Hope Condition -0.51-0.87* -0.67-0.65-0.26-0.74 0.21 (0.48) (0.48) (0.47) (0.47) (0.50) (0.46) (0.52) Pride and Hope Condition 0.25-0.12 0.48 0.51 0.58 0.18 0.41 (0.50) (0.50) (0.54) (0.49) (0.51) (0.51) (0.55) Hope and Fear Condition -0.64-0.26-0.35-0.73-0.15-0.46-0.09 (0.47) (0.45) (0.46) (0.46) (0.47) (0.45) (0.48) Fear and Pride Condition 0.09-0.07 0.06-0.23-0.03-0.13 0.39 (0.49) (0.50) (0.50) (0.49) (0.52) (0.49) (0.53) Gender -0.14-0.15-0.78*** -0.17-0.32-0.35-1.17*** (0.29) (0.29) (0.29) (0.29) (0.29) (0.28) (0.33) Immigrant Generation -0.13-0.26* -0.09-0.18-0.04-0.14-0.19 (0.13) (0.13) (0.13) (0.13) (0.14) (0.13) (0.14) Highest Educ. Degree (7- cat., 0-1) 0.64 0.99* 0.76 0.44 0.33 0.78 0.34 (0.59) (0.59) (0.59) (0.58) (0.60) (0.57) (0.63) Household Income level (5-cat., 0-1) -0.65-0.66-0.04-0.37-0.04-0.41 1.34** (0.52) (0.52) (0.51) (0.52) (0.52) (0.50) (0.58) Age -0.02* -0.01-0.03** -0.02-0.00-0.01-0.02 (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) Mexican 0.31 0.43-0.16 0.76 0.22 0.32 1.27 (0.61) (0.62) (0.63) (0.64) (0.60) (0.59) (1.00) Puerto Rican 0.37 0.30 0.20 0.43 0.34 0.44 2.12* (0.65) (0.66) (0.68) (0.67) (0.64) (0.63) (1.09) Cuban -0.02 0.33 0.27 0.78 0.64 0.46 0.76 (0.77) (0.75) (0.76) (0.78) (0.75) (0.73) (1.06) Other Latino 0.22 0.36 0.07 0.72 0.31 0.37 1.21 (0.60) (0.60) (0.61) (0.62) (0.59) (0.58) (0.97) Constant 0.56 0.50 1.84** 0.32-0.67 2.92*** 0.47 (0.92) (0.92) (0.93) (0.93) (0.93) (0.89) (1.21) Observations 254 253 252 252 249 243 253 R-squared 0.05 13

Table A.11.1: Study 1, Cell Distribution by Experimental Condition (after dropping 14 outliers based on survey length) Control Threat Opportunity Coupled n 249 250 250 252 Table A.11.2: Study 2, Cell Distribution by Experimental Condition (after dropping outliers based on word count) Control Fear Hope Coupled Fear and Hope Coupled Hope and Fear Coupled Fear and Pride Coupled Pride and Hope n 175 166 154 162 159 162 152 14

2024 © lawsdocbox.com Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Feedback