question 2 and 3 are need to be solved. 2. Finding 1: An examination of state-le
ID: 3500093 • Letter: Q
Question
question 2 and 3 are need to be solved.
2. Finding 1: An examination of state-level data on electoral turnout reveals that, as states percentages of low-income citizens increase, turnout increases. Conclusion: Low-income citizens are more likely to vote than are high-income citizens. A. For the purposes of this exercise, assume that Finding 1 is correct-that is, assume that Finding 1 describes the data accurately. Is the conclusion supported? Making specific reference to a problem discussed in this chapter, explain your answer Suppose that, using individual-level data, you compared the voting behavior of low-income citizens and high-income citizens. Finding 2: Low-income citizens are less likely to vote than high-income citizens. Explain how Finding 1 and Finding 2 can both be correct. B. 3. This chapter discussed the Hawthorne effect, a measurement problem that can arise in the study of human subjects. A. Using an example other than the one used in this chapter, describe a measurement situation in which the Hawthorne effect would arise. what sort of measurement error is the Hawthorne effect-random measurement error or systematic measurement error? Explain your answer. B.Explanation / Answer
Low income earners are more likely to vote than high income earners. This conclusion can be true. This is because low income earners might be assured of benefits and welfare programmes to be initiated in their favour, by the political parties who are contesting to win the elections. The low income earners then can generate high expectations of a better future, under a specific government. Their interests might be promised by the political parties to be represented. The issues and problems bothering them might be promised to be solved in the upcoming years by the competing political parties. Thus, the low income earners might develop a positive feeling for a particular political party and decide to vote in their favour.
Low income earners are less likely to vote than high income earners. This conclusion can also be true. It was found that when a government cash transfer programme was initiated, children raised in homes, belonging to the lower end of the income distribution, received extra earnings. These children were found to be more likely to vote as adults, than children of households, who did not get cash transfers. More specifically, children belonging to the lower end of the initial income distribution, escalated their voting by 10 to 20 % points as adults, than children who did not get escalated incomes during adolescence. Poor people are less likely to vote than rich people because they might feel excluded and disbelieve the process of voting, which fails to fetch any fruitful changes in their lives. By not voting, poor people tend to express their rage and the fact that politicians do not have the intention to represent them. Infact, politicians represent the interests of higher income earners, therefore, this serves as a reason for high income earners to vote, more than low income earners.
The hawthorne effect can be defined as an escalation in worker's productivity or behavioral modification brought about by one's alertness of being observed. It is also termed as the 'observer effect'.
A measurement situation in which the hawthorne effect would arise is when nurses are observed for changes in hand hygiene (HH) behavior, in a direct observational prospective study. Observations in such a situation can be made on an 8 hours basis /day in a study, which can be conducted for 3 to 5 days in 5 intensive care units (ICUs) of 4 hospitals. One can conduct the study on ICU nurses in a city. The hawthorne effect then can be measured by the 'hand hygiene adherence rates' of the first 2 hours, which can be expected to be '20% higher than the last 6 hours', and the first 2 hours can be subtracted and an additional 2 hours can be added, at the culmination of the observation period.
The hawthorne effect is a kind of systematic error. Systematic errors are known to be consistent errors. It means, if the experiment is repeated, the same error will be obtained. The consistency in error takes place due to damaged equipments or due to an improper experimental design or incorrect measurement. The hawthorne effect will take place, when the people under study will know that they are being observed, but researches are often conducted on people, who remain unaware of being studied, 'while being observed'. This highlights a defect in the experimental design. On the other hand, random errors are unsystematic errors or random variations in the readings taken in a study. They are unpredictable and do not repeat, with repetitions of the experiment.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.