Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This research evaluates the relative merits of two established and two newly proposed methods for modeling impressions of social events: stepwise regression, ANOVA, Bayesian model averaging, and Bayesian model sampling. Models generated with each method are compared against a ground truth model to assess performance at variable selection and coefficient estimation. We also assess the theoretical impacts of different modeling choices. Results show that the ANOVA procedure has a significantly lower false discovery rate than stepwise regression, whereas Bayesian methods exhibit higher true positive rates and comparable false discovery rates to ANOVA. Bayesian methods also generate coefficient estimates with less bias and variance than either stepwise regression or ANOVA. We recommend the use of Bayesian methods for model specification in affect control theory.

Keywords

affect control theory impression formation methodology Bayesian modeling

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Altman

Douglas G.

Bland

J. Martin

. 1994. “Diagnostic Tests 1: Sensitivity and Specificity.” The British Medical Journal 308:1552.

Fernández

Carmen

Ley

Eduardo

Steel

Mark F. J.

2001. “Model Uncertainty in Cross-Country Growth Regressions.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 16:563–76.

Fontaine

Johnny R. J.

Scherer

Klaus R.

Roesch

Etienne B.

Ellsworth

Phoebe C.

2007. “The World of Emotions Is Not Two-Dimensional.” Psychological Science 18:1050–57.

Freedman

David A.

1983. “A Note on Screening Regression Equations.” The American Statistician 37:152–55.

Ghosh

Joyee

Ghattas

Andrew E.

2015. “Bayesian Variable Selection Under Collinearity.” The American Statistician 69: 165-173.

Heise

David R.

1979. Understanding Events: Affect and the Construction of Social Action. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Heise

David R.

1997. “INTERACT: Introduction and Software.” Affect Control Theory website, University of Indiana. Retrieved August 5, 2015 (http://www.indiana.edu/~socpsy/ACT/interact.htm).

Heise

David R.

2007. Expressive Order: Confirming Sentiments in Social Actions. New York: Springer.

Heise

David R.

2010. Surveying Cultures. Discovering Shared Conceptions and Sentiments. New York: Wiley.

10.

Heise

David R.

2015. “Determinants of Normative Processes: Comparison of Two Empirical Methods of Specification.” Quality and Quantity 6:2559–76.

11.

Kass

Robert E.

Wasserman

Lee

. 1995. “A Reference Bayesian Test for Nested Hypotheses and Its Relationship to the Schwarz Criterion.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 90:928–34.

12.

Kohavi

Ron

. 1995. “A Study of Cross-Validation and Bootstrap for Accuracy Estimation and Model Selection.” International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence 14:1137–45.

13.

Liang

Feng

Paulo

Rui

Molina

German

Clyde

Merlise A.

Berger

Jim O.

2008. “Mixtures of g Priors for Bayesian Variable Selection.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 103:410–23.

14.

Lynch

Scott M.

2007. Introduction to Applied Bayesian Statistics and Estimation for Social Scientists, edited by Fienberg

S. E.

Linden

V. J. van der

. New York: Springer.

15.

MacKinnon

Neil J.

Robinson

Dawn T.

2014. “Back to the Future: 25 Years of Research in Affect Control Theory.” Advances in Group Processes 31:139–73.

16.

Osgood

Charles E.

May

William H.

Miron

Murray S.

1975. Cross-Cultural Universals of Affective Meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

17.

Osgood

Charles E.

Suci

George J.

Tannenbaum

Percy H.

1957. The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

18.

Perrakis

Konstantinos

Ntzoufras

Ioannis

Tsionas

Efthymios G.

2014. “On the Use of Marginal Posteriors in Marginal Likelihood Estimation via Importance Sampling.” Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 77:54–69.

19.

Raftery

Adrian R.

1995. “Bayesian Model Selection in Social Research.” Sociological Methodology 25:111–63.

20.

Raudenbush

Stephen W.

Bryk

Anthony S.

2012. Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods: Advanced Quantitative Methods, vol. 1. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

21.

Scholl

Wolfgang

. 2013. “The Socio-Emotional Basis of Human Interaction and Communication: How We Construct Our Social World.” Social Science Information 52:3–33.

22.

Schröder

Tobias

. 2011. “A Model of Language-Based Impression Formation and Attribution among Germans.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 30:82–102.

23.

Schröder

Tobias

Stewart

Terrence. C.

Thagard

Paul

. 2014. “Intention, Emotion, and Action: A Neural Theory Based on Semantic Pointers.” Cognitive Science 38:851–80.

24.

Sharma

Subhas

Durand

Richard M.

Gur-Arie

Oded

. 1981. “Identification and Analysis of Moderator Variables.” Journal of Marketing Research 18:291–300.

25.

Smith

Herman W.

Matsuno

Takanori

Umino

Michio

. 1994. “How Similar Are Impression-Formation Processes among Japanese and Americans?” Social Psychology Quarterly 57:124–39.

26.

Smith-Lovin

Lynn

. 1987. “Impressions from Events.” Journal of Mathematical Sociology 13:35–70.

27.

Smith-Lovin

Lynn

Heise

David R.

1978. Mean Affective Ratings of 2,106 Concepts by University of North Carolina Undergraduates in 1978 [computer file]. Available at http://www.indiana.edu/~socpsy/ACT/interact/JavaInteract.html.

28.

Smith-Lovin

Lynn

Robinson

Dawn T.

2015. Interpreting and Responding to Events in Arabic Culture. Final Report to Office of Naval Research, Grant N00014-09-1-0556, August 31, 2015.

29.

Thompson

Bruce

. 1989. “Why Won’t Stepwise Methods Die? Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development.” Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development 21:146–48.

30.

Thukral

Pavleen

Mitra

Kaushik

Chellappa

Rama

. 2012. “A Hierarchical Approach for Human Age Estimation.” Pp. 1529–32 in Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), IEEE. Kyoto, Japan.

31.

Volinsky

Chris T.

Madigan

David

Raftery

Adrian

Kronmal

Richard A.

1997. “Bayesian Model Averaging in Proportional Hazard Modeling: Assessing the Risk of a Stroke.” Applied Statistics 46:433–48.

32.

Zeugner

Stefan

Felkircher

Martin

. 2009. “Benchmark Priors Revisited: On Adaptive Shrinkage and Supermodel Effect in Model Averaging,” IMF Working Paper 09-202. Available at https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2009/wp09202.pdf.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.18 MB