Media, intention and final vote:A two-wave panel data study to the effects of media       factors on the PvdA and VVD vote...
Table of contentsINTRODUCTION AND THEORY.....................................................................................
Media, intention and final vote:A two-wave panel data study to the effects of mediafactors on the PvdA and VVD voteMark Bo...
•   H2: Readers of De Telegraaf will be more likely to vote for the VVD at the time of the          elections, whereas the...
with a non-Western origin were underrepresented. The dataset contained the answers ofalmost 2000 respondents (N = 1,895). ...
(in wave 1). A logistic regression was necessary to investigate the effect on the odds ofrespondents having voted for one ...
Table 2. The effects of the independent variables on the odds of having voted for a party (PvdA/VVD)                      ...
De Telegraaf is the only print medium that has a significant effect on the votes. Whenwe inspect the coefficients belongin...
conclude straightforwardly whether a bandwagon effect took place in this study. While itseems a cause for voting the PvdA,...
Appendix B: Do File*Assignment8clearset memory 250m, permanentlyset more off, permanentlyuse H:DDANKO2006tab v081tab v081,...
graph box commtv*programs   on public broadcasting tvtab v857tab v852tab v860tab v855tab v867tab v871tab v856tab v872tab v...
**************Prepare the other independent variables *******tab v104tab v104 , nolreplace v104=.a if v104==997|v104==998t...
tab religious, misstab religious, nollogit pvda2006vote pvda2006intention commtv pbstv NewspaperT1 NewspaperT2Telegraaf Vo...
list rstd rnr pvda2006vote pvda2006intention commtv pbstv Telegraaf age maleloweducation higheducation income religious if...
test Volkskranttest estimateVVDSeats                        13
Media, intention and final vote: A two-wave panel data study to the effects of media factors on the PvdA and VVD vote - Tw...
Media, intention and final vote: A two-wave panel data study to the effects of media factors on the PvdA and VVD vote - Tw...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Media, intention and final vote: A two-wave panel data study to the effects of media factors on the PvdA and VVD vote - Two-wave panel data

439

Published on

Media, intention and final vote: A two-wave panel data study to the effects of media factors on the PvdA and VVD vote
Two-wave panel data

Published in: News & Politics
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
439
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Media, intention and final vote: A two-wave panel data study to the effects of media factors on the PvdA and VVD vote - Two-wave panel data

  1. 1. Media, intention and final vote:A two-wave panel data study to the effects of media factors on the PvdA and VVD vote Two-wave panel data Assignment 8 Mark Boukes (markboukes@Hotmail.com) 5616298 1st semester 2010/2011 Dynamic Data Analysis Lecturer: Dr. R. Vliegenthart January 28, 2010 Communication Science (Research MSc) Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences University of Amsterdam
  2. 2. Table of contentsINTRODUCTION AND THEORY........................................................................................................................1METHOD........................................................................................................................................................2RESULTS........................................................................................................................................................4 MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATION WITH BINARY LOGISTIC REGRESSION..........................................................................................4CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................................6REFERENCE....................................................................................................................................................7APPENDIX A: TELEVISION PROGRAMS USED TO CONSTRUCT THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES..........................7APPENDIX B: DO FILE.....................................................................................................................................8
  3. 3. Media, intention and final vote:A two-wave panel data study to the effects of mediafactors on the PvdA and VVD voteMark BoukesIntroduction and theoryIn this study, I aim to investigate 1) certain assumptions that are often made by politicians butalso communication scholars and 2) a more investigated and well-known theory. First, I willtest whether certain media really have the political influence that is assumed by some people.It is frequently said that programs of public broadcasters belong to the ‘left church’ and thatDe Volkskrant is a left newspaper, whereas De Telegraaf is a newspaper with right-wingsympathies; Algemeen Dagblad, NRC Handelsblad and the commercial broadcasters seem tohave a less obvious political stance. This study investigates whether these media indeed havethe effect on their viewers and readers as often is assumed. In the period before elections anincrease in media attention for this democratic process is logically expected; therefore, it isalso reasonable to expect potential effects to take place in that period. Furthermore, the well-known bandwagon-effect (McAllister & Studlar, 1991) will be tested; are voters who expectthat a party will win many seats in Parliament more likely to vote for that party, than voterswho expect a less good result? I will focus on (potential) voters of two parties: the PvdA (socialists) and VVD(liberals). The decision to choose these two parties is based on poll and election results (seealso Figure 1) and the characteristics of the parties. First, the PvdA is a left-wing party,whereas the VVD is a right-wing party, which makes it interesting to compare the effects onboth parties. Furthermore, the PvdA lost many seats in the last weeks before the electionsaccording to the poll results the Politieke Barometer of Interview-NSS (now Synovate), whatmakes it interesting to find potential causes of the losses. Consequently, four hypotheses will be tested focusing on the effects of television,newspapers and expectations. • H1: Viewers of public broadcasting programs will be more likely to change their political preference in a left political direction in the period before the elections and therefore are more likely to vote for the PvdA at the time of the elections, whereas they are less likely to vote for the VVD, compared to a first measure of vote intention some weeks before the elections. 1
  4. 4. • H2: Readers of De Telegraaf will be more likely to vote for the VVD at the time of the elections, whereas they are less likely to vote for the PvdA, compared to a first measure of vote intention some weeks before the elections. • H3: Readers of De Volkskrant will be more likely to vote for the PvdA at the time of the elections, whereas they are less likely to vote for the VVD, compared to a first measure of vote intention some weeks before the elections. • H4: People, who estimate the number of seats a political party will win in the elections higher, will be more likely to vote for that party, than those who estimate this number lower, compared to a first measure of vote intention some weeks before the elections.Figure 1. Poll results of the weeks before the 2006 Dutch Parliamentary election and the election resultsMethodTo investigate the hypothesis a two-wave panel survey was used, the ‘Dutch ParliamentaryElection Studies 2006’1. Statistics Netherlands (CBS) carried out the fieldwork; interviewswere conducted face-to-face or by telephone; via a self-completion questionnaire the secondpart of the questions were posed. A two-stage procedure was followed to find the sample ofrespondents: first, municipalities were selected with unequal chances to the number of personsin the municipalities; second, persons living in the selected municipalities had an equalchance to be invited to participate in the survey. The total non-response rate of the survey was51.7 percent. The survey was rather representative for the Dutch population, though people1 http://www.dpes.nl/pages/nko_2006.php 2
  5. 5. with a non-Western origin were underrepresented. The dataset contained the answers ofalmost 2000 respondents (N = 1,895). The dependent variable in this study is measured in the second wave by the question‘Which party did you vote for at the elections of 22 November?’ and the lagged dependentvariable was measured in the first wave by the question ‘Which party will you vote for at theelections of 22 November?’ (with a do-not-know-yet possibility). Dummy variables werecreated for either having voted on the PvdA, having voted on the VVD (both wave 2), havinghad the intention to vote for the PvdA, and having had the intention to vote for the VVD (bothwave 1). In an original way, via an additive score for the variables indicating how oftenparticular programs are watched (1-5 scale, never – almost daily), the two independentvariables were created to measure how often respondents watch public broadcasting televisionor commercial television. For both variables, the same number of programs were chosenwhich are highly similar; for example, when a talk show was chosen for commercialbroadcasters also a similar talk show was chosen for the public broadcaster; the news on theDutch public broadcaster NOS was included, so the news on commercial broadcaster RTL4was also included, etc. In total, for both independent variables (‘watching publicbroadcasting’ and ‘watching commercial broadcasting’) eight similar programs were selected(see Appendix A for the programs). Furthermore, variables were already present in the dataset for if the people read certainnewspapers; those just needed to be recoded into dummy variables. To investigate the presenceof a bandwagon-effect, the variables were used that were obtained by the question ‘How manyseats do you think [party] will get in the next elections?’. Because some respondents answeredwith numbers that were obviously not credible (lower than 10 or more than 40 for the VVD /lower than 10 or more than 60 for the PvdA), those were set to missing, just as was the case forthe respondents who did not answer this question. Next to this, control variables were created or changed for the analysis. Age wascalculated by subtracting the year of birth from 2006. Gender was measured by a dummy forbeing male. Dummy variables were also created for education; respondents either completedlow level education, middle level education or high level education. The household incomewas already measured in a useable way. A dummy was created for being religious. To analyse the effects of the different media on the real vote of respondents a logisticregression analyses was conducted using Stata 10.1. The analysis controlled for the laggeddependent variable, which is the intention to vote or not for a certain party some weeks before 3
  6. 6. (in wave 1). A logistic regression was necessary to investigate the effect on the odds ofrespondents having voted for one party (score 1) or not (score 0). An inspection of the outliersof this model showed that some respondents stand out with high standardized residuals,however these cases seem to represent natural deviations, not miscoded observations or wronginterpretations and are therefore kept in the sample; except, as specified above, for those withstrange estimates for the number of seats a party would gain.ResultsBefore the results of the logistic analysis are presented, first an overview will be presented soit is clear how much the real votes vary from the intentions people had to vote. Table 1 showsthe number of voters who did and who did not change their vote compared to their intentionto vote for one of the parties. It becomes clear that of only about 10 percent of the voters thereal vote differs from the intended vote. Via the logistic regression analysis it was investigatedwhich media factors could have caused these differences.Table 1. Variation between vote intention and real vote Intention to vote PvdA Intention to vote VVD No Yes No Yes Voted PvdA Voted VVD No 1,478 47 No 1,611 32 Yes 154 216 Yes 113 139Maximum likelihood estimation with binary logistic regressionThe binary logit model with vote in the election for a party as dependent variable; frequencyof watching public broadcasting, frequency of watching commercial broadcasting, readingcertain newspapers and the estimation of the number of seats that party will get in the electionas independent variables; age, sex, education, income and religiosity as control variables; andfinally the intention to vote for that party a few weeks before as lagged dependent variable,reduces the error in the prediction of the binary variable with 56.6 % for the model withvoting for the PvdfA as dependent variable and with 50.0 % for the model with voting for theVVD as dependent variable according to the adjusted count R2. The results of these modelscan be found in Table 3. 4
  7. 7. Table 2. The effects of the independent variables on the odds of having voted for a party (PvdA/VVD) PvdA vote VVD vote Odds ratios (SE) Odds ratios (SE)Intention to vote for this party (1 =Yes, 0 = No) 75.336 (23.187)** 65.049 (21.027)**Watching public broadcasting 1.404 (0.249) # 0.915 (0.172)Watching commercial broadcasting 1.046 (0.189) 0.923 (0.182)Reading De Telegraaf (1 = Yes, 0 = No) ## 0.539 (0.171) 2.673 (0.729)**Reading De Volkskrant (1 = Yes, 0 = No) 1.054 (0.353) 0.488 (0.208)Reading Algemeen Dagblad (1 = Yes, 0 = No) 0.923 (0.291) 1.716 (0.521)Reading NRC Handelsblad (1 = Yes, 0 = No) 0.773 (0.304) 1.450 (0.534)Estimated number of seat for party 1.044 (0.019)* 0.998 (0.020)Age 0.985 (0.008) 0.982 (0.009)**Male (1 = Yes, 0 = No) 0.664 (0.157) 0.915 (0.236)Low level education (ref. Middle) 0.904 (0.327) 0.641 (0.266)High level education (ref. Middle) 0.876 (0.240) 0.870 (0.252)Income 1.012 (0.023) 1.037 (0.024)Religious (1 = Yes, 0 = No) 0.590 (0.142)* 0.572 (0.146)*Observations (N) 973 904Adjusted count R2 / Nagelkerke R2 0.566 / 0.564 0.500 / 0.525χ2 430.00 340.98BIC -6043.753 -5566.993Cells contain odd ratios, exp(b); with standard errors in parentheses# p = 0.056, # p = 0.052,* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01The exponentials of the coefficients estimated by the binary logit models, odds ratios, indicatethat whether variables positively (coefficients above 1) or negatively (coefficients below 1)affect the likelihood that a respondents votes for a party. Logically, the effects of the laggeddependent variable ‘Intention to vote for this party’ are large and positive, more interestingare the other effects. Starting with the first hypothesis, watching more frequently public broadcasting makesit more likely that respondent have voted for the PvdA, whereas this has no influence on thelikelihood of voting for the VVD. A one-point increase in watching public broadcasting raisesthe odds of voting for the PvdA by a factor of 1.404, holding the other variables constant.Following a two-tailed test with 95% confidence interval, this effect is not significant;however, because this effect was hypothesized to be positive, a one-tailed test is allowed andit is thus possible to conclude that watching programs of public broadcasters makesrespondents more likely to vote for the PvdA (χ2 = 3.66, p = 0.06) compared to their intentiona few weeks before the elections. As expected, watching commercial broadcasting has nosignificant effects on the likelihood of voting for one of the two parties. 5
  8. 8. De Telegraaf is the only print medium that has a significant effect on the votes. Whenwe inspect the coefficients belonging to reading the newspapers included in the analysis, itbecomes clear that reading all the other newspapers does not significantly increase or decreasethe likelihood of voting for the PvdA or the VVD. However, reading De Telegraaf does thisand also in the direction that was expected, therefore again one-tailed tests were allowed.Reading De Telegraaf significantly raises the odds of voting for the VVD by a factor of 2.673(χ2 = 13.00, p < 0.01), whereas it significantly decreases the odds of voting for the PvdA by afactor of 0.539 (χ2 = 3.78, p = 0.052). The hypothesised effects of reading De Volkskrant wererejected as it seems not to influence the odds of voting for the PvdA significantly (χ2 = 0.02, p= 0.88) and the effect on the odds of voting for the VVD was only marginally significant (χ2 =2.83, p = 0.09). However, this last effect was indeed in the expected direction, as reading DeVolkskrant decreases the odds of voting VVD by a factor of 0.488. Finally, the so-called bandwagon effect seems only to be found partially by thisanalysis. It seems only for the PvdA vote the case that as higher respondents expect thenumber of seats that party will get after the election, the more likely it will become they votefor the PvdA. For every one seat higher estimation of the election results, the odds of votingfor the PvdA significantly increases by a factor of 1.044 (χ2 = 5.83, p < 0.05). A similar effectwas not found for the VVD voters (χ2 = 0.01, p = 0.94).ConclusionThis study has found some interesting results. First of all, the stimulating influence ofwatching public broadcasters’ programs on the intention to vote for the PvdA. The likelihoodof this increases by seeing those programs and as this study controls for many possibleconfounding variables, this might indicate certain content in those programs that arefavourable for the PvdA and perhaps other left-wing parties too. This is remarkable since ofthe programs that were taken into consideration, only two of the eight were produced by theVARA, a public broadcaster that is related to the PvdA in various ways. Therefore, othercharacteristics of those programs might explain why watching these programs increases theodds of voting for the PvdA, but does not influence the odds of voting for the VVD. A similarbut contradictory conclusion is that reading De Telegraaf increases the odds of voting for theVVD, while it decreases the odds of voting for the PvdA. Probably a characteristic of thisnewspaper underlies this effect. To understand both effects better, content analysis might behelpful. Nevertheless, the results seem to confirm the left-wing identity of the publicbroadcasting system and the right-wing identity of De Telegraaf. It was not possible to 6
  9. 9. conclude straightforwardly whether a bandwagon effect took place in this study. While itseems a cause for voting the PvdA, the estimation of the number of seats the VVD gets in theelection did not influence the final vote for that party. Though results could possibly be biased by sensitization to the questions (Romer,Kenski, Winneg, Adasiewicz & Jamieson, 2006), the two-wave panel design had the largebenefit that it was possible to include a lagged dependent variable, and thereby control for thepast political preferences of respondents. Therefore, we can be surer that the respondents wereinfluenced by the media in the weeks between the two measures, in which it is also likely,because there probably was a lot of media attention for politics as the elections were comingnear. This influence seemed to be in the direction that was expected for the publicbroadcasting programs and De Telegraaf and the assumptions that are often expressed aboutthese can therefore be substantiated with the results of this study.ReferenceMcAllister, I., & Studlar, D. T. (1991). Bandwagon, underdog, or projection?: Opinion polls and electoral choice in Britain, 1979-1987. The Journal of Politics, 53, 720-740.Romer, D., Kenski, K., Winneg, K., Adasiewicz, C., & Jamieson, K. H. (2006). Capturing campaign dynamics 2000 & 2004: The National Annenberg Election Survey. Philidelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Appendix A: Television programs used to construct the independent variablesPublic broadcasting Commercial broadcastingOnderweg naar morgen (Ned. 3) Goede Tijden, Slechte Tijden (RTL4)EenVandaag (Ned. 1) Editie NL (RTL4)De Wereld Draait Door (Ned. 3) Boulevard (RTL4)Man Bijt Hond (Ned. 2) Big Brother (Talpa)NOS 8 uur journal (Ned. 1) RTL4 Nieuws (RTL4)NOVA, Den Haag Vandaag (Ned. 2) Hart van Nederland (SBS6)Netwerk (Ned. 2) Shownieuws (SBS6)Pauw en Witteman (Ned. 1) Jensen! (RTL5) 7
  10. 10. Appendix B: Do File*Assignment8clearset memory 250m, permanentlyset more off, permanentlyuse H:DDANKO2006tab v081tab v081, nolgen pvda2006intention = 0replace pvda2006intention = 1 if v081==2gen vvd2006intention = 0replace vvd2006intention = 1 if v081==3tab v512tab v512, nolgen pvda2006vote = 0replace pvda2006vote = 1 if v512==2gen vvd2006vote = 0replace vvd2006vote = 1 if v512==3//all measures have a 911 out of 2806 people get the answer PA(means notmeasured in this wave), those will therefore be droppeddrop if v936==994****Media independent variables*programs on commercial televisiontab v868tab v853tab v854tab v859tab v861tab v863tab v864tab v870tab v868, noltab v853, noltab v854, noltab v859, noltab v861, noltab v863, noltab v864, noltab v870, nolreplace v868=.a if v868==997replace v853=.a if v853==997replace v854=.a if v854==997replace v859=.a if v859==997replace v861=.a if v861==997replace v863=.a if v863==997replace v864=.a if v864==997replace v870=.a if v870==997pwcorr v868 v853 v854 v859 v861 v863 v864 v870egen commtv = rowmean(v868 v853 v854 v859 v861 v863 v864 v870)egen commtv_m = rowmiss(v868 v853 v854 v859 v861 v863 v864 v870)replace commtv = .a if commtv_m>3sum commtvtab commtv , misshistogram commtv 8
  11. 11. graph box commtv*programs on public broadcasting tvtab v857tab v852tab v860tab v855tab v867tab v871tab v856tab v872tab v857, noltab v852, noltab v860, noltab v855, noltab v867, noltab v871, noltab v856, noltab v872, nolreplace v857=.a if v857==997replace v852=.a if v852==997replace v860=.a if v860==997replace v855=.a if v855==997replace v867=.a if v867==997replace v871=.a if v871==997replace v856=.a if v856==997replace v872=.a if v872==997corr v857 v852 v860 v855 v867 v871 v856 v872pwcorr v857 v852 v860 v855 v867 v871 v856 v872alpha v857 v852 v860 v855 v867 v871 v856 v872egen pbstv = rowmean(v857 v852 v860 v855 v867 v871 v856 v872)egen pbstv_m = rowmiss(v857 v852 v860 v855 v867 v871 v856 v872)replace pbstv = .a if pbstv_m>3sum pbstvtab pbstv , misshistogram pbstvgraph box pbstv***Other media variables***tab v016tab v016, nolrecode v016 (1=1 Yes) (2=0 No) (997=.a) (998=.a) (999=.a), gen(Telegraaf)tab Telegraaftab v017tab v017, nolrecode v017(1=1 Yes) (2=0 No) (997=.a) (998=.a) (999=.a), gen(Volkskrant)tab Volkskranttab v019tab v019, nolrecode v019(1=1 Yes) (2=0 No) (997=.a) (998=.a) (999=.a), gen(NRC)tab NRCtab v020tab v020, nolrecode v020(1=1 Yes) (2=0 No) (997=.a) (998=.a) (999=.a), gen(AD)tab AD 9
  12. 12. **************Prepare the other independent variables *******tab v104tab v104 , nolreplace v104=.a if v104==997|v104==998tab v104, missinggen estimatePvdASeats=v104tab v103tab v103 , nolreplace v103=.a if v103==997|v103==998tab v103, missinggen estimateVVDSeats=v103tab v421, missgen age = 2006-v421sum agetab age, misstab v420, misstab v420, nolabelrecode v420(2=0 Female) (1=1 Male), gen(male)tab male,miss*highest education completedtab v430tab v430, nolrecode v430(1=0 elementary) (2=1 vocational) (3=2 secondary) (4=3higherLevel) (5=4 university) (997=.a), gen(education)tab v430tab education, misstab education, nolgen loweducation=0replace loweducation=1 if education==0|education==1replace loweducation=.a if education==.agen middleeducation=0replace middleeducation=1 if education==2|education==3replace middleeducation=.a if education==.agen higheducation=0replace higheducation=1 if education==4replace higheducation=.a if education==.atab loweducation,misstab middleeducation,misstab higheducation,miss*household income corrected for hh sizetab v414, misstab v414, nolgen income=v414replace income=.a if income==998tab incometab v425tab v425, nolrecode v425(2=0 notReligious) (1=1 Religious), gen(religious)tab religious, missreplace religious=.a if religious==997 10
  13. 13. tab religious, misstab religious, nollogit pvda2006vote pvda2006intention commtv pbstv NewspaperT1 NewspaperT2Telegraaf Volkskrant NRC AD Metro Spits EncounterPollsT1 EncounterPollsT2seenDebatesEntirely seenNoDebates MatchmakerPVDA MatchmakerSPestimatePvdASeats Turkey_EU age male loweducation higheducation incomereligious*Just AR(1)logit pvda2006vote pvda2006intentionlistcoef*AR(1) plus controlslogit pvda2006vote pvda2006intention age male loweducation higheducationincome religiouslistcoef*AR(1) plus controls plus tvlogit pvda2006vote pvda2006intention commtv pbstv age male loweducationhigheducation income religiouslistcoef*AR(1) plus controls plus tv plus newspaperlogit pvda2006vote pvda2006intention commtv pbstv Telegraaf Volkskrant ADNRC age male loweducation higheducation income religiouslistcoef**diagnosticspredict rstd, rslabel var rstd "Standardized Residual"sort rstd , stablelist rstd rnr pvda2006vote pvda2006intention commtv pbstv Telegraaf age maleloweducation higheducation income religious if (rstd>2.5|rstd<-2.5)&rstd!=.predict cook, dbetagraph twoway scatter cook rnr, ylabel(0(.01).05) xtitle("RNR") yline(.1 .2)msymbol(none) mlabel(rnr) mlabposition(0)list pvda2006vote pvda2006intention commtv pbstv Telegraaf Volkskrant AD NRCage male loweducation higheducation income religious estimatePvdASeatsTurkey_EU if rnr==4078|rnr==1729|rnr==3366//remove uncredible estimates of pvda seatstab estimatePvdASeatsreplace estimatePvdASeats =.a if estimatePvdASeats<10replace estimatePvdASeats =.a if estimatePvdASeats>60tab estimatePvdASeatstab estimateVVDSeatssum estimateVVDSeatsreplace estimateVVDSeats=.a if estimateVVDSeats<10replace estimateVVDSeats=.a if estimateVVDSeats>40tab estimateVVDSeatslogit pvda2006vote pvda2006intention commtv pbstv Telegraaf Volkskrant ADNRC estimatePvdASeats age male loweducation higheducation income religiousdrop rstd cookpredict rstd, rslabel var rstd "Standardized Residual"sort rstd , stable 11
  14. 14. list rstd rnr pvda2006vote pvda2006intention commtv pbstv Telegraaf age maleloweducation higheducation income religious if (rstd>2.5|rstd<-2.5)&rstd!=.predict cook, dbetagraph twoway scatter cook rnr, ylabel(0(.01).05) xtitle("RNR") yline(.1 .2)msymbol(none) mlabel(rnr) mlabposition(0)list cook rstd pvda2006vote pvda2006intention commtv pbstv TelegraafVolkskrant AD NRC age male loweducation higheducation income religiousestimatePvdASeats Turkey_EU if rnr==1797|rnr==1717|rnr==1729|rnr==1228|rnr==1927|rnr==2751*test for heteroscedasticityhetprob pvda2006vote pvda2006intention commtv pbstv Telegraaf Volkskrant ADNRC age male loweducation higheducation income religious estimatePvdASeats,het(pvda2006intention commtv pbstv Telegraaf Volkskrant AD NRC age maleloweducation higheducation income religious estimatePvdASeats)* not significant, no heteroscedasticity, so robust estimation is notnecessary*test for multicollinaritycollin vvd2006vote vvd2006intention pbstv commtv Telegraaf Volkskrant AD NRCestimateVVDSeats age male loweducation higheducation income religious**check for wrong codingstab pvda2006vote, noltab pvda2006intention , noltab commtv , noltab pbstv , noltab Telegraaf , noltab Volkskrant , noltab AD , noltab NRC , noltab age , noltab male , noltab loweducation , noltab higheducation , noltab income , noltab religious , noltab estimatePvdASeats , noltab Turkey_EU, noltab vvd2006vote , noltab vvd2006intention , noltab estimateVVDSeats*inspection of changetab pvda2006vote pvda2006intentiontab vvd2006vote vvd2006intention**Final modelslogistic pvda2006vote pvda2006intention pbstv commtv Telegraaf Volkskrant ADNRC estimatePvdASeats age male loweducation higheducation income religiousfitstattest pbstvtest Telegraaftest Volkskranttest estimatePvdASeatslogistic vvd2006vote vvd2006intention pbstv commtv Telegraaf Volkskrant ADNRC estimateVVDSeats age male loweducation higheducation income religiousfitstattest pbstvtest Telegraaf 12
  15. 15. test Volkskranttest estimateVVDSeats 13

×