Format 1x REPORT using guidelines supplied from University.

Topic: Format 1x REPORT using guidelines supplied from University.1x ready report with about 1375 words should be correctly re-formatted using a University guideline that is provided as TXT file indicating the correct FORMAT:1. DOUBLE SPACING, 2. FONT SIZE 12, 3. FONT TIMES NEW ROMAN, 4. WRITE IN ACTIVE RATHER THAN PASSIVE, 5. TITLE, 6. ABSTRACT, 7. INTRODUCTION, 8. METHOD, 9. Participants, 10. DESIGN, 11. DESIGN, 12. APARATUS/MATERIALS, 13. PROCEDURE, 14. RESULTS, 15. Discuss (check for the help you need)ION, 16. APA REFERENCING, 17. APPENdICES, 18. SUMMARY,Please read the ?TIPS FOR WRITING PRACTICAL REPORTS? which consists of 13 pages to follow the instructions how to successfully conclude this piece of work.the report is written and ready, however it has a different report style and does not follow the correct format, therefore, it must be correctly re-formatted using the guidelines exactly as specified and required by the University.Additional FilesPractical Report on Cross Pressure ScoresUniversity of GloucestershireS06080379th July 2012AbstractStudies show that the extent to which people was cross pressured to make their voting decision affecting their political behavior. With that, this topic focuses on an effort of presenting the new technique of estimating cross pressures objected at improving already available methods. This is achieved by making individuals to be specific in what they want during voting, estimating the total cross pressures that people faced and finally can be achieved by estimating the extensive available information in any size of party system, therefore facilitating the study of overtime, cross national and cross pressures effects. In this report I will demonstrate the fact that these estimates vigorous, corresponds with current measures of cross pressure well and that have some relationship with behavior patterns predicted by extant theories (Robert & Collier, 2001IntroductionVaried empirical findings partially blames disappearance of research on effects of cross pressures on political involvement, the demise of research in this connection is a result of inadequate flexible, effective and readily implementable techniques for measuring the extent to which people are subjected to cross pressures. Initial cross pressures estimation approaches only counted two sources of dichotomous cross pressures every time, which were appropriate during multiparty system but are not consistent with consequent political development methodologies. Currently use of social network techniques have increased but they are limited to availability of specific data from handful elections, and still when the data are available, in can only tap small part of respondent?s real social network not including other signal sources connected to cross pressure (Robert & Collier, 2001).Therefore, one of the main objectives of the paper is to introduce a new cross pressures measure that is elastic to scale up any political group, incorporate a number of any salient cleavages calculated from readily available information from each election study of both genders (male and female) and to approximately estimate the total probable respondent being cross pressured politically.In the process, the researcher seek to refresh cross pressure analysis of political behavior effects by offering scholarly tools such as cross pressure score for analysis of causes and effects at a larger extent of cross pressures (Basinger & Howard, 2005).The process includes a review of the initial voter behavior studies, by utilizing personal demographic profile to evaluate the extent of individual subjection to political pressures reinforcements or conflicts, but by extending specific features radically employed in estimation and finally calculating every individuals? unique cross pressures estimates.The research is intended to complement contemporary studies delving in physiological and social processes that underlie subjective perception measures of social networks communication or group signals but instead I will utilize cross pressure scores in estimating cross pressure level overally to which individuals are subjected, for which those other techniques are not well suitable (Basinger & Howard, 2005).The first step is through the first relationship between partisan preferences and demographic features are estimated using regression analysis. This was meant to measure demographics and preferences correlation but not work as comprehensive preferences model (Basinger & Howard, 2005).The second is that the next common techniques of estimating social network cross pressure is the calculation of individual?s participants proportion with whom he or she conflicts over party preferences. The variance in cross pressure scores of both the highest and lowest quintiles measures conflicting was over 1%. Several measures of social network pressures seen shows positive correlation with commonly used attitudinal measures existing in cross pressures. Hence cross pressure scores proves to be a capturing phenomenon intended to measure (Basinger & Howard, 2005).The results of the previous study match up the prediction, for all the participation models the cross pressure scores coefficient were negative and highly significant. The listed margin in the consequent rows offers estimate outcome if all female and male voters were alternatively from lowest to highest at 10th , 50th and 90th in terms cross pressure scores of overall sample population holding all the real values of the variables. Movement from 10th to 90th percentile had an effect of 3.4% reduction at high reported rate turn out, nevertheless stronger relationship were suspected on accuracy of turnout measure.Donations and advocacy among male and female individuals showed slightly enormous effects from similar manipulation, decreasing percentiles from 6.0% and 4.7% respectively (Basinger & Howard, 2005). Donations rates changes was an increment of 50% , probably a low cross pressured people will donate relative to greater cross pressured people.Certainly, there was no disparity between the cross pressure scores and participation of the sample sizes of the overall data set. But on the larger extent, it serves as a case promoter for utilization of cross pressure scores. Currently, research of cross pressures weighed down by unrealistic estimates and minimal samples, and these aspects have led to inconsistency of resulting findings. Utilization of cross pressures scores on male or female voters with huge datasets, results to alleviation of these problems enabling researchers to discern more acutely the presence of minimal but critical effects in the middle of countless other involve components (Craig & Martinez, 2005).Results and Discuss (check for the help you need)ionThe objective of this report was to introduce new and unique cross pressure measurement tools for estimating cross pressures amongst individuals based on extensive demographic variables by allowing the data to point out the connection between partisan preferences and these demographic features. Also this method aimed at applying national research and other available data sets enabling the research of cross pressure effects in varied situations. In submitting new cross pressure measures to an extensive range of analytical examination using varied data sources, it was found out that these measures are vigorous to different specifications.The results further show that it does not show any increase in cross pressure for male or female expected to highly cross pressured in correlation to present cross pressure measures and it forecasts decreased participation and hypothesized changes in probable mediating variables. These variables illustrate that cross pressure scores are helpful tools in the research of individual male and female political behavior (Craig & Martinez, 2005).References: Robert, C. &Collier, D. (2001).Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative andQuantitative Research. American Political Science Review 95(3): 529?546.Basinger, J. & Howard, L. (2005). Ambivalence, Information, and Electoral Choice.?American Political Science Review 99(2): 169-84.Berelson, R., Paul F., & William N. (1954). Voting: A Study of OpinionFormation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Campbell, A., Philip E., Warren E., & Donald E. (1960). The AmericanVoter. New York: Wiley.Craig, C. & Martinez, M. (2005). Ambivalence and the Structure of Political Opinion.New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Eveland, P. & Hutchens, H. (2009). Political Discuss (check for the help you need)ion Frequency, Network Size, and?Heterogeneity? of Discuss (check for the help you need)ion as Predictors of Political Knowledge and Participation.Journal of Communication 59: 205?224.Hillygus, D. & Todd G. (2008). The Persuadable Voter: Wedge Issues in PresidentialCampaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Horan, M. (1971).Social Positions and Political Cross-Pressures: A Re-examination.American Sociological Review 36(4): 650-60.Huckfeldt, R. & Sprague, J. (1995). Citizens, Politics, and Social Communication: Informationand Influence in an Election Campaign. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Huckfeldt, R., Morehouse, M. & Osborn, T. (2004). ?Disagreement, Ambivalence, andEngagement: The Political Consequences of Heterogeneous Networks.?Political Psychology 25(1): 65?95.Huckfeldt, R. Ken?ichi, I. & Franz P. (2005). Patterns of Disagreement in Democratic Politics:Comparing Germany, Japan, and the United States. American Journal ofPolitical Science 49(3): 497?514.Huckfeldt, R. (2007). Unanimity, Discord, and the Communication of Public Opinion. AmericanJournal of Political Science 51(4): 978?995.Jang, S. (2009). Are Diverse Political Networks Always Bad for Participatory Democracy?Indifference, Alienation, and Political Disagreements. American Politics Research. 37(5):879?899.Knoke, D. (1990). Political Networks: The Structuralist Perspective. New York, NY: CambridgeUniversity Press.La Due Lake, R. & Huckfeldt, R. (1998). Social Capital, Social Networks, and PoliticalParticipation. Political Psychology 19(3): 567?584.Lavine, H. (2001). The Electoral Consequences of Ambivalence toward PresidentialCandidates. American Journal of Political Science 45(4): 915-29.Lazarsfeld, F., Hazel G. & Berelson, B. (1944). The People?s Choice: How the Voter Makes UpHis Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York: Duell Sloan and Pearce.Leighley, E. (1990). Social Interaction and Contextual Influences on Political Participation.American Politics Research 18: 459?475.McClurg, D. (2006a). The Electoral Relevance of Political Talk: Examining Disagreement andExpertise Effects in Social Networks on Political Participation. American Journal ofPolitical Science 50(3): 737?54.McClurg, D. (2006b). ?Political Disagreement in Context: The Conditional Effect ofNeighborhood Context, Disagreement, and Political Talk on Electoral Participation.?Political Behavior 28: 349?366.Mutz, C. (1998). Impersonal Influence: How Perceptions of Mass Collectives Affect PoliticalAttitudes. New York: Cambridge University PressAppendicesReliability Analysis Data118Female 000005219Female 2212113320Female 101007421Female 2123013523Male 000106625Female 2232014718Male 000117819Male 2222013919Female 1000281020Male 22220131121Female 1000171220Male 31110111321Female 0000061420Female 32220151521Female 0000061620Male 33330171720Female 1001081820Female 22221161919Male 1001062020Female 32220142118Female 0000052219Female 22121122320Female 10100102421Female 21230162523Male 0001092625Female 22320142718Male 0001182819Male 22220122919Female 1000293020Male 22220143121Female 1000183220Male 31110113321Female 0000053420Female 32220143521Female 0000053620Male 33330163720Female 1001073820Female 22221163919Male 1001094020Female 3222018HOUSEHOLD SURVEY QUESTIONNAIREENUMERATOR?S NAME????????????TELEPHONE????????DATE OF INTERVIEW?????????TIME FROM???..TO????SIGN?????SUPERVISOR?S NAME????????????????SIGN????????DATE???????STUDY SITE????????????????????______________________________________________________________________________PART 1: LOCATION IDENTIFICATIONROAD NO. /NAME???????????????REGION???????????????.CONSTITUENCY?????????..SUBLOCATION????????????VILLAGE ????????????..______________________________________________________________________________PART 2: INFORMATION ON THE RESPONDENTNAME??????????????????TELEPHONE.????????..Heading Household? YES 1NO 2Land ownership: Owner 1Tenant 2Acreage????????..No. of persons living in the household ???????????..______________________________________________________________________________PART 3: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA (ENTER CODES INDICATED: 0-4)SNName of Household Member Age ? in yearsSex1-M2-FRelationship to Head of HH1. Head2. Spouse3. Child4. Grandchild5. Worker6. Others(Specify)Marital Status0. Child1. Married2. Single3. Widow/ Widower4. Separated/ DivorcedRemarks12345678PART 4: EDUCATION, OCCUPATION AND INCOME LEVELS OF HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS (ENTER CODES INDICATED: 1-7)Name of Household Member (Over 18 years) Relationship to Head of HH1. Head2. Spouse3. Child4. Grandchild5. Worker6. Others (Specify)Education Level0. None1. Literacy Graduate2. Primary3. Secondary4. Tertiary (College, University)Main Occupation0. Unemployed1. Farmer2. Trader3. Artisan4. Casual Laborer5. Salaried6. Self Employment (Specify)7. Student8. Others(Specify)Monthly IncomesKsh P.M0. None1. Less Than 2,5002. 2,500-5,0003. 5,000-10,0004. 10,000-20,0005. 20,000-30,0006. 30,000-40,0007. Over 40,00012345678910PART 5: SECONDARY SOURCES OF INCOME OF HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS (ENTER CODES INDICATED: 1-5)Name of Household Member Relationship to Head of HH1. Head2. Spouse3. Child4. Grandchild5. Worker6. Others (Specify)Income From Main Occupation(4) KshSecondary Sources1. Farming2. Business3. Part Time Emp.4. Remittances From Relatives5. Others(Specify)Monthly IncomesKsh P.M1. Less Than 5,0002. 5,000-10,0003. 10,000-20,0004. 20,000-30,0005. Over 30,0001234567I understand that my participation in this project will involve completing a household survey questionnaire that will take approximately 15minutes.I understand that my participation in this study is entirely voluntary and that I can withdraw from the study at any time for any reason.I understand that I am free to ask questions at any time. If for any reason I experience discomfort in any way I am free to withdraw or Discuss (check for the help you need) my concerns with student s0608037 (e-mail: [email protected])I understand that the information provided by me will be held anonymously such that it is impossible to trace the information back to me individually. I understand that, in accordance with the Data Protection Act, this information may be retained indefinitely. Finally, I also understand that at the end of the study I will be provided with additional information and feedback.I, ?????????????????consent to participate in the study conducted by student s0608037. Dept. of Natural and Social Sciences, University of Gloucestershire.Signed:Date:Category: Editing

Unlike most other websites we deliver what we promise;

  • Our Support Staff are online 24/7
  • Our Writers are available 24/7
  • Most Urgent order is delivered with 6 Hrs
  • 100% Original Assignment Plagiarism report can be sent to you upon request.

GET 15 % DISCOUNT TODAY use the discount code PAPER15 at the order form.

Type of paper Academic level Subject area
Number of pages Paper urgency Cost per page: