Murray Gabriel Djupe #2

Gabriel Murray, 9135

11/03/2015

Doing Political Science: The American Voter

The Inconsistent Effects of Political Knowledge:

Exploring Political Participation of Introverted and Extroverted Men and Women at Different

Levels of Political Knowledge

This study aims to refute the view that women are more empowered than men by political

knowledge. I anticipate finding that political knowledge in some conditions depresses political

participation. Those that believe political knowledge asymmetrically benefits women think

women hold themselves to a higher standard and therefore require greater certainty before

participating (Jones-White and Ondercin 2011: 676-680). The expectation follows that women

and men participate at similar levels at the highest levels political knowledge. However, the

empirical data simply doesn’t support this uncomplicated theory. They expect women to “assess

their qualifications differently than do men,” which seems to imply that we should expect

different types of political activities from men and women, all else constant (Jones-White and

Ondercin 2011: 677).

Authors of these studies posit the gap between men and women should be lower for

activities that are less public (Jones-White and Ondercin 2011: 682-683), and as such the gap

between men and women should be most pronounced for highly public activities. However, a

clear progression of visibility for these acts is not immediately obvious. Donating money and

voting are private activities, but voting is also highly discussed. This study puts the two more

private activities, voting and giving money, first and the latter three more public activities,

Murray 1

wearing a button or having a bumper sticker, attending a rally or meeting, having a yard sign,

and volunteering, last.

The way that other studies show their hypotheses are positive is by using a statistical

technique which takes the difference between the change in political participation by political

knowledge levels of men and women. These authors show that political participation of women

is becomes more equal as political knowledge increases by subtracting the difference in marginal

effects of political knowledge on political participation for men and women. Using this

technique, they show that the gaps in participation decrease as political knowledge increases.

The authors assume that women are becoming empowered by political knowledge to the extent

that men are. However, this test doesn’t show what is actually occurring for each population,

which I will show is not an unconditional gain in political participation for all segments of the

population with women gaining more. Through adequate tests, this study shows that what occurs

in some cases women aren’t changing in levels of political participation, but that men are

participating less as their political knowledge increases.

Furthermore, in seeking to show the conditionality of political knowledge’s effect and its

lack of consistency across certain stratifications of the sample, this study shows that introverts

and extroverts react differently to political knowledge. Especially for public acts, I expect to find

that introverts are less effected by political knowledge levels and extroverts are highly effected.

As introverts learn more about opposing candidates, they theoretically become immobilized from

their conflicting political and social attachments to the candidates. Extroverts react oppositely,

taking to the public that which they feel strongest about.

Literature Review

Murray 2

The theoretical relation between political knowledge and political participation is that

those that are politically knowledgeable will feel sure about their positions (McClurge 2006).

Those that feel ambiguous towards their choices are not likely to devote time, energy, or money

to a particular choice. The belief is that as political knowledge increases so does the individual’s

knowledge about the candidates’ positions. This knowledge allows the individual to build an

affinity towards a certain candidate. Individuals with an affinity for a certain candidate will be

more willing to devote resources to the candidate, and therefore will participate at higher rates

than those without political knowledge.

Primarily, this research parses the effect of political knowledge on political participation.

There is a fair amount of consensus in the literature that women gain more from political

knowledge than men, regardless of the information’s origin (Jones-White and Ondercin 2011;

Djupe, McClurg, and Sokhey 2010). This line of reasoning is the main point to be refuted. It will

be shown that it is not the case that women gain more from political knowledge than men, but

that men are negatively affected by political knowledge. This conclusion is precisely opposite of

the conclusion drawn by Djupe et. Al (2010) who posited that because women tend to score

higher on agreeableness and extroversion they would be more sensitive from dissenting opinions,

a logical correlation with political knowledge. Instead, it seems women are far less effected by

disagreement. It seems instead of that “women benefit from socially-supplied expertise, while

men do not” that, assuming the origin of such expertise is not significant, men are negatively

affected by expertise whereas women are not.

No literature deals precisely with this issue. Verba et al.’s summarization that “[i]interest

in political socialization is not especially fashionable these days” (Verba, Burns, and Lehman

Schlozman 1997) rings true in 2015; few researchers interested in political participation taking

Murray 3

any account of the effect of personality types on political participation. That the effect of

political knowledge, widely regarded as a universally effective indicator has no limited or

contradictory effects on introverted men and women merits further consideration into the

possible conditionality of other predictors of political participation.

Methods

The crux of the paper is describing that men and women react differently to political

knowledge and that this effect is very different than as it’s described in the literature. A logit

analysis is used to estimate the probability of an individual performing a political activity based

on a variety of predictors described in the data section. The crucial predictor investigated in this

study is the relationship between political knowledge, gender, and extroversion/introversion.

Data

The data was obtained through Qualtrics and is sample drawn from a national pool. Due

to the survey’s design, each response is multiplied by four. The survey size appears to be 6200,

but was asked of 1550 individuals. Each table and figure reflect this fact.

This section describes the most important variables in the study. Political knowledge is an

accumulation of four factual questions. The respondent is asked which party is in control of the

House of Representatives at the time of the survey’s administration, how long House

Congressman are elected for, what portion of Congress it takes to override a veto, and which

party is more conservative at the national level. Response rates to these questions are offered in

the descriptions section below.

Political participation is the accumulation of four activities: displaying a political yard

sign; attending a political rally or meeting; giving money to a political campaign; and

Murray 4

volunteering time to a political campaign. These represent some of the most common political

activities and are frequently employed in studies of political participation.

Extroversion is the degree to which the respondent agreed with the statement that they

were “extroverted, enthusiastic” minus the degree to which they agreed with the statement that

they were “reserved, quiet.” Six degrees of variance were available to the respondent. The

extroversion scale is coded such that a six is full agreeance with the extroversion statement and

full disagreement with the introversion statement. Full introversion is the opposite.

An interaction term was created between political knowledge and extroversion to

measure the extent to which political participation is predicted by introversion/extroversion and

political knowledge. All control variables are scaled between 0 and 1 to simplify understanding

their effect. Detailed descriptions of all the variables employed can be found in Appendix C.

Descriptions

Previous researcher have found that women are more empowered by their political

knowledge than men. Those who subscribe to this view propose that women hold themselves to a

higher standard and take more information to come to a decision on which political candidate

will be better for them (McClurg 2006). Because of this, they are less likely to devote resources

to a candidate at lower levels of political knowledge. Women’s higher threshold for political

participation combined with their lower levels of political knowledge depresses levels of female

participation.

[Table 1 Here]

Table 1 presents political participation levels across different activities for men and

women. The last column of Table 1 shows the difference between men and women’s

Murray 5

participation levels. Women are found to perform political activities at lower rates than men for

all activities except attending a political rally or meeting, though the difference is marginal

at .03%. Voting is not included in the “all political activities” graphic because most people in the

dataset reported voting and therefore there would be little variance to study.

[Table 2 Here]

Table 2 shows the portion of those answering political knowledge questions correctly and

incorrectly by gender. Again, the last column shows the difference between the genders,

calculated as the portion of men answering correctly minus the portion of women answering

correctly. Men answered questions correctly at a higher proportion than women on all questions

with the difference being the smallest on the question which had the highest proportion of correct

answers. Questions were multiple choice, which may have increased the portion of correct

answers.

Political knowledge is predicted differently for men and women. For both genders, many

of the same variables are significant predictors of whether the individual is politically

knowledgeable, but the discrepancies merit cursory evaluation. Table 3 presents a regression

analysis with political knowledge as the dependent variable for women on the left and men on

the right. P-values are reported in parenthesis beneath the regression coefficients. The regression

isn’t immediately applicable to this study, and thus its analysis is discussed in Appendix A.

[Figure 1 Here]

Finally, to be sure the politically knowledgeable does not systematically vary by

extroversion levels, I measure mean levels of extroversions across political knowledge levels.

Figure 1 shows that extroversion levels are remarkably even across political knowledge levels, as

Murray 6

illustrated by the red line. The aggregate level of extroversion is slightly introverted, and this is

reflected at each level of political knowledge.

Analysis

Five political activities are measured: voting; displaying a yard sign; volunteering time;

giving money; attending a rally or meeting; and wearing a button or having a bumper sticker.

The analysis is conducted through a series of logit models estimating the probability an

individual participated in a particular political activity. First is a summary of all political

activities except voting.

[Figure 2 Here: All political activities]

With full controls, women participate at lower levels. Interestingly, for neither extroverts

nor introverts women does political knowledge increase the likelihood of participating in a

political activity to a statistically significant level. Although the trend for extroverts is positive,

its effect doesn’t surpass 90% confident intervals. For introverted men, however, the effect is

highly significant and negative. This seems to be where other researchers found support for the

claim that women are significantly empowered by political knowledge. The common

mathematical technique used to find show that women are more empowered by increasing

political knowledge levels is a technique which subtracts the effect of political knowledge on

political participation at each level. This makes women appear to become empowered by

political knowledge to a level on par with men. The reality is that men are participating less at

higher political knowledge levels, and the rate at which they participate decreases more than

women at the highest political knowledge levels.

Murray 7

[Figure 3 Here: Voting]

For measures of voting, men are insignificantly affected by political knowledge levels

regardless of introversion/extroversion levels. Extroverted women are positively affected barely

above significance levels. Extroverted women provide minimal support for previous researchers’

findings. It’s typical for voting to be included as a political activity. Voting is also one of the

most private political activities included, and if educated individuals are the most prone to

conflict avoidance, they might express their political preferences in only private ways.

[Figure 6 Here: Giving Money]

Men were insignificantly effected by political knowledge levels. Introverted and

extroverted men participated at very different levels regardless of political knowledge levels.

Introverted and extroverted women are indistinguishable at the lowest level of political

knowledge. Extroverted women were about twice as likely at the highest political knowledge

levels to give money than at the lowest level.

[Figure 4 Here: Displaying a Yard Sign]

Extroverted men are more likely to have a yard sign at higher levels of political

knowledge with a confidence interval that just exceeds the 10% threshold. Introverted men

follow the expected trend of decreasing probability with increasing political knowledge levels.

The effect of political knowledge on men is very strong; participation decreases by about a factor

of about 10 from lowest to highest knowledge levels. Interestingly, women are insignificantly

effected by political knowledge.

[Figure 5 Here: Volunteering Time]

Murray 8

Volunteering one’s time is somewhat indeterminate. Volunteering has the fewest number

of people participating in the activity, and the low sample size produces huge confidence

intervals. Taken with this in mind, political knowledge’s effect on men doesn’t exceed

confidence intervals, though the trend for both activities suggests negative correlations. For

women, however, extroverts are more likely to participate in political activities with increasing

political knowledge levels and introverts are less likely. This coincides with the initial

hypotheses.

[Figure 7: Attending a Political Meeting or Rally]

Men and women are generally indistinguishable from each other at each political

knowledge interval. The only stratification of the population significantly affected by political

knowledge levels were introverted women, whose probability for attending a political meeting or

rally decreased by a factor of about four from the lowest to the highest level of political

knowledge. Extroverted women seem to increase over political knowledge levels, but the effect

doesn’t reach statistical significance.

[Figure 8 Here: Wearing a button/Having a Bumper Sticker]

Introverted men are less likely by over a factor of two to wear a button or have a bumper

sticker when they go from lowest levels of political knowledge to highest levels of political

knowledge. Extroverted men trend negatively, but fail to meet significance standards. Introverted

women also tend negatively but fail to meet statistical significance standards. Extroverted

women, however, increase in likelihood by a factor of about three from lowest to highest levels

of political knowledge. These results suggest a trend of inconsistency between political

knowledge and political participation.

Murray 9

Conclusion

[Table 4 Here: Sign of Relationship on Political Participation of Introverts and Extroverts by

Political Knowledge Levels]

This study cannot find support for any trend between political knowledge,

extroversion/introversion, and gender. Table 4, which displays the direction of political

knowledge’s effect on political participation by extroversion/introversion and gender, is the

clearest indicator of this fact. Table 4 does not take into account statistical significance but only

the direction of the coefficients. The directions fail to display any discernable patterns.

This study was successful in showing that political knowledge does not have a universal

positive or negative effect on an individual’s probability of participating in political activities. It

was a failure if the objective was to find consistent conditions under which political knowledge

operates on political participation by political activity. This study was successful in showing that

political participation is systematically different for introverts and extroverts, though the nuances

of this relationship and the types of political behaviors which introverts and extroverts will

participate in must undergo further studies to be understood.

Murray 10

Works Cited

McClurg, Scott D. 2006. “The Electoral Relevance of Political Talk: Examining Disagreement and Expertise Effects in Social Networks on Political Participation.” American Journal of Political Science 50(3): 737–54.

Ondercin, Heather L. and Daniel Jones-White. 2011. “Gender Jeopardy: What is the Impact of Gender Differences in Political Knowledge on Political Participation?” Social Science Quarterly 92(3): 675-694.

Djupe, Paul A., Scott D. McClurg, and Anand E. Sokhey. “The Political Consequences of Gender in Social Networks.”

Verba, Sidney, Nancy Burns, and Kay Lehman Schlozman. "Knowing and Caring about Politics: Gender and Political Engagement." J of Pol The Journal of Politics, 1997, 1051.

Murray 11

Appendix A: Tables and Figures

Table 1: Political Participation by Gender

Men Did Not Vote Voted Percent Did

Difference between men and women

Men 272 1932 87.66% 2.16%Women 308 1816 85.50%

Did Not Go to a Rally or Meeting Went to a Rally or MeetingMen 2824 188 6.24% -0.03%Women 2988 200 6.27%

Did Not Volunteer VolunteeredMen 2812 200 6.64% 2.88%Women 3068 120 3.76%

Did Not Wear a Button or Have Bumper Sticker

Wore a button or Had bumper sticker

Men 2472 540 17.93% 2.30%Women 2712 476 14.93%

Did Got Give Money Gave MoneyMen 2656 356 11.82% 1.53%Women 2860 328 10.29%

Did Not Have a Yard Sign Had a Yard SignMen 2472 540 17.93% 7.26%Women 2848 340 10.66%

Did Not Participate* Participated*Men 1804 1208 59.89% 26.39%Women 2120 1068 33.50%

* This does not include voting as an activity

Murray 12

Table 2: Political Knowledge Questions answered correctly by Gender

Knows House Control Incorrect Correct Knows/TotalDifferenc

eMen 880 1,344 60.43 12.12Women 1,104 1,032 48.31

Knows Conservative Party Knows/TotalDifferenc

eMen 524 1,576 75.05 2.76Women 552 1,440 72.29

Knows Proportion Needed to Override Veto Knows/Total

Difference

Men 596 1,500 71.56 13.61Women 836 1,152 57.95

Knows House Terms Knows/TotalDifferenc

eMen 1,060 1,032 49.33 11.6Women 1,228 744 37.73

Murray 13

Table 3: Political Knowledge Predictions by Gender

(1) (2)VARIABLES Women Men

Extroversion -0.21 -0.21*(0.13) (0.09)

Election Interest 0.95*** 1.44***(0.00) (0.00)

Efficacy -0.45*** -0.90***(0.00) (0.00)

Republicanism 0.49*** 0.64***(0.00) (0.00)

Partisanship 0.46*** 0.16(0.00) (0.13)

age1 1.16*** 0.10(0.00) (0.66)

Education 1.96*** 1.67***(0.00) (0.00)

Married 0.09 -0.15**(0.20) (0.03)

Divorced -0.06 0.41***(0.52) (0.00)

Employed -0.00 -0.23***(0.95) (0.00)

Household Income 0.14 0.13(0.29) (0.24)

Religious Attendance -0.19 0.04(0.19) (0.75)

Guided by Religion 0.01 -0.49***(0.94) (0.00)

Black 0.16*** 0.12***(0.00) (0.00)

Frequency of Television News Viewership

-0.42*** -0.38***

(0.00) (0.00)Frequency of internet News Viewership

0.15* 0.21**

(0.10) (0.02)Economic Pessimism -0.43*** 0.39***

(0.00) (0.01)Outward Political Views 0.27* 0.17

(0.08) (0.25)Constant -0.61** 0.37

(0.03) (0.12)Observations 1,704 1,864R-squared 0.22 0.25

P-values in parentheses*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

All coefficients present, extroversion has an effect on men only in the negative direction. Election interest has 1.5 times the effect for men than for women. Feelings of efficacy are negatively correlated for men and women with political knowledge; the effect for men is twice that of women. Married men are less political knowledgeable; divorced men are more politically knowledgeable. Neither are significant for women. The amount to religious beliefs guides one’s life is negatively correlated with political knowledge for men, but the effect is insignificant for women. Pessimistic views on the economy are negatively correlated with political knowledge for women, but positively correlated with political knowledge for men. Women who agree with the statement that they want their political views to be known are more knowledgeable than women who don’t; for men, this variable is insignificant.

Murray 14

Figure 1: Mean Extroversion by Political Knowledge Levels-5

05

0 1 2 3 4pk

extroverted expk_m

Murray 15

Figure 2: Probability of Participation of Introverts and Extroverts by Political Knowledge Levels and Gender

0.2

.4.6

.8P

roab

ility

of P

oliti

cal A

ctiv

ity

0 1 2 3 4Political Knowledge

Introverts Extroverts

Women

0.2

.4.6

.8P

roab

ility

of P

oliti

cal A

ctiv

ity



Men

Figure 3: Probability of Voting of Introverts and Extroverts by Political Knowledge Levels and Gender

.7.8

.91

Pro

abili

ty o

f Pol

itica

l Act

ivity



Men

.7.8

.91

Pro

abili

ty o

f Pol

itica

l Act

ivity



Women

Murray 16

Figure 4: Probability of Displaying a Yard Sign of Introverts and Extroverts by Political Knowledge Levels and Gender

0.2

.4.6

Pro

abili

ty o

f Pol

itica

l Act

ivity



Men

0.2

.4.6

Pro

abili

ty o

f Pol

itica

l Act

ivity



Women

Figure 5: Probability of Donating to a Campaign of Introverts and Extroverts by Political Knowledge Levels and Gender

0.1

.2.3

Pro

abili

ty o

f Pol

itica

l Act

ivity



Men

0.1

.2.3

Pro

abili

ty o

f Pol

itica

l Act

ivity



Women

Murray 17

Figure 6: Probability of Volunteering for a Campaign of Introverts and Extroverts by Political Knowledge Levels and Gender

0.1

.2.3

.4P

roab

ility

of P

oliti

cal A

ctiv

ity



Men

0.1

.2.3

.4P

roab

ility

of P

oliti

cal A

ctiv

ity



Women

Figure 7: Probability of Attending a Political Rally or Meeting of Introverts and Extroverts by Political Knowledge Levels and Gender

0.1

.2.3

.4P

roab

ility

of P

oliti

cal A

ctiv

ity



Men

0.1

.2.3

.4P

roab

ility

of P

oliti

cal A

ctiv

ity



Women

Murray 18

Figure 8: Wearing a button/Having a Bumper Sticker

0.1

.2.3

.4.5

Pro

abili

ty o

f Pol

itica

l Act

ivity



Men

0.1

.2.3

.4.5

Pro

abili

ty o

f Pol

itica

l Act

ivity



Women

Table 4: Direction of the Effect of Political Knowledge on Probability of Political Participation

Extroverted Women

Extroverted Men

Introverted Women

Introverted Men

Voting + + + +Yard Sign + - - -Giving Money + - - -Volunteering + - - -Rally/Meeting + - - n/aButton/Bumper Sticker - + + -

Murray 19

Appendix B: Coding Appendix

Variables

**** Personality Variables ****

gen extroverted=(q32_1-q32_2)

gen extro1=((extroverted+6)/12)

gen dependable=(q32_3-q32_4)

gen sympathetic=(q32_5-q32_6)

gen calm=(q32_7-q32_8)

gen open=(q32_9-q32_10)

** Election Interest, increasing is more interested **

gen electioninterest=q2

recode electioninterest 1=5 2=4 3=3 2=2 5=1

gen electioninterest1=(electioninterest/5)

** Voted, 1 = voted, 0 = did not **

gen voted=w3

recode voted 2=1 3=0 4=.

** Gender 0 = male 1 = female

gen gender=q83

recode gender 1=0 2=1

** Age

rename age yearofbirth

gen age=(2012-yearofbirth)

Murray 20

gen age1=((age-11)/101)

** Education **

*gen education=(q54/5) already defined

gen education1=(education/5)

** Married **

gen married=q46

recode married 2=0 3=0 4=0

** divorced **

gen divorced=q46

recode divorced 1=0 2=0 3=1 4=0

** Employment **

gen employed=w47

recode employed 2=0 3=0 4=1

** HHincome **

gen hhincome=(q48/6)

** Black **

gen black=q49

** TV News **

gen tvnews=q55_1

gen internetnews=q55_2

gen tvnews1=(tvnews/8)

Murray 21

gen netnews1=(internetnews/8)

** Want others to know where I stand **

gen outwardpol=q43_4

gen outwardpol1=(outwardpol/5)

** Economic pessimism **

gen econpes=q20

gen econpes1=(econpes/5)

** Pid7, increasing in **

*gen pid7=q7 already exists

gen pid71=(pid7/7)

gen partisanship=pid7

recode partisanship 0=3 6=3 1=2 5=2 2=1 4=1 3=0

gen part1=((partisanship+1)/4)

** Conservatism, 5-pt increasing in conserve **

gen libcon=w73

recode libcon 5=1 4=2 2=4 1=5

**** Political Activities ****

** Has yard sign for candidate, party, or issue **

gen yardsign=q9_1

replace yardsign =0 if yardsign!=1

** Has button or bumper for "" **

gen buttonorbumper=q9_2

replace buttonorbumper =0 if buttonorbumper!=1

Murray 22

** Volunteered for "" **

gen volunteered=q9_3

replace volunteered =0 if volunteered!=1

** Attended a rally or meeting for ""

gen rallyormeeting=q9_4

replace rallyormeeting =0 if rallyormeeting!=1

** Gave money to ""

gen gavemoney=q9_5

replace gavemoney =0 if gavemoney!=1

** Did a pol activity **

gen allpolactivity =0

replace allpolactivity =1 if gavemoney==1 | rallyormeeting==1 | volunteered==1| buttonorbumper==1 | yardsign==1

**** Political Knowledge ****

** House Of Reps majority **

gen pkhouse=w82

recode pkhouse 2=1 1=0 3=0

** House terms **

gen pkhouseterm=w85

recode pkhouseterm 1=0 3 4 5 6 7 =0 2=1

** More conservative party **

gen pkparty=w84

Murray 23

recode pkparty 1=0 3=0 2=1

** Override Veto percentage needed **

gen pkveto=w87

recode pkveto 2=1 1=0 3=0 4=0 5=0

** All PK **

gen pk=(pkhouse+pkhouseterm+pkparty+pkveto)

gen pk1=(pk/4)

** Mean extroversion by political knowledge levels

egen expk_m=mean(extrovert), by(pk)

** Rel importance , increasing in important 7-pt **

gen relimp=q53

** How Imp Religion in life for guidance **

gen relguide=(q53/7)

** Public Officials care about me **

gen efficacypubcare=q43_1

recode efficacypubcare 1=0 2=1 3=2 4=3 5=4

** Gov&politicis too complicated for people like me **

gen efficacycomplicated=q43_2

recode efficacycomplicated 1=0 2=1 3=2 4=3 5=4

** Total efficacy **

gen efficacy=(efficacypubcare+efficacycomplicated)

Murray 24

gen efficacy1=((efficacy+1)/9)

Graphics

* PK on participation by extroversion and sex

logit allpolactivity i.female##c.pk##c.extrovert electioninterest1 efficacy pid71 part1 education1 married divorced employed hhincome relattend black, l(90)

margins, at(pk=(0 (1) 4) female=(1) extrovert=(-6 6)) l(90)

marginsplot, name(pi) ytitle(Proability of Political Activity) xtitle(Political Knowledge)

logit allpolactivity i.female##c.pk##c.extrovert electioninterest1 efficacy pid71 part1 education1 married divorced employed hhincome relattend black, l(90)

margins, at(pk=(0 (1) 4) female=(0) extrovert=(-6 6)) l(90)

marginsplot, name(ip) ytitle(Proability of Political Activity) xtitle(Political Knowledge)

graph combine pi ip, ycommon

** Type of Pol Participation by extroversion and sex

logit vote c.pk##c.extrovert electioninterest1 efficacy pid71 part1 education1 married divorced employed hhincome relattend black if female==0, l(90)

margins, at(pk=(0 (1) 4) extrovert=(-6 6)) l(90)

marginsplot, name(m1, replace) ytitle(Proability of Political Activity) xtitle(Political Knowledge) title(Men)

logit vote c.pk##c.extrovert electioninterest1 efficacy pid71 part1 education1 married divorced employed hhincome relattend black if female==1, l(90)


marginsplot, name(f1, replace) ytitle(Proability of Political Activity) xtitle(Political Knowledge) title(Women)

graph combine m1 f1, ycommon

logit volunteered c.pk##c.extrovert electioninterest1 efficacy pid71 part1 education1 married divorced employed hhincome relattend black if female==0, l(90)


marginsplot, name(m2) ytitle(Proability of Political Activity) xtitle(Political Knowledge) title(Men)

Murray 25

logit volunteered c.pk##c.extrovert electioninterest1 efficacy pid71 part1 education1 married divorced employed hhincome relattend black if female==1, l(90)


marginsplot, name(f2) ytitle(Proability of Political Activity) xtitle(Political Knowledge) title(Women)


logit rallyormeeting c.pk##c.extrovert electioninterest1 efficacy pid71 part1 education1 married divorced employed hhincome relattend black if female==0, l(90)



logit rallyormeeting c.pk##c.extrovert electioninterest1 efficacy pid71 part1 education1 married divorced employed hhincome relattend black if female==1, l(90)




logit buttonorbumper c.pk##c.extrovert electioninterest1 efficacy pid71 part1 education1 married divorced employed hhincome relattend black if female==0, l(90)



logit buttonorbumper c.pk##c.extrovert electioninterest1 efficacy pid71 part1 education1 married divorced employed hhincome relattend black if female==1, l(90)




Murray 26

logit gavemoney c.pk##c.extrovert electioninterest1 efficacy pid71 part1 education1 married divorced employed hhincome relattend black if female==0, l(90)



logit gavemoney c.pk##c.extrovert electioninterest1 efficacy pid71 part1 education1 married divorced employed hhincome relattend black if female==1, l(90)




logit yardsign c.pk##c.extrovert electioninterest1 efficacy pid71 part1 education1 married divorced employed hhincome relattend black if female==0, l(90)



logit yardsign c.pk##c.extrovert electioninterest1 efficacy pid71 part1 education1 married divorced employed hhincome relattend black if female==1, l(90)




** Extroversion by pk levels

sort pk

sort extrovert

twoway scatter extrovert pk, jitter(15) || line expk_m pk, name(expk11)

graph combine expk11

Murray 27

Documents

Murray Gabriel Djupe #2