What does the author(s) hypothesize is the relationship between the independent and dependent variables?
What does the author(s) hypothesize is the relationship between the independent and dependent variables? OR, What are some alternative explanations for explaining variation in the dependent variable?What is the dependent variable What is the independent variable
- How does the author test their/her hypotheses?
- What does the author find?
- What is the connection between the two articles? Why does one cite the other?
MCQ questions:
1. What is the dependent variable examined by Sachweb and Sthamer (2019)?
- a. Rising levels of income inequality
- b. Perceptions of procedural justice
- c. Perceptions of social injustice
- d. Outcome-related justice assessments
2. How do Sachweh and Sthamer operationalize the dependent variable?
- a. With a survey question that asks whether the respondent perceives whether political institutions operate fairly.
- b. With a survey question that asks whether the respondent perceives the social differences in the country to be just.
- c. Self-described household income.
- d. Objectively and externally assessed household income
3. Which of the following is not used by Sachweb and Sthamer as an independent variable?
- a. Perceptions of procedural justice
- b. Outcome-related justice assessments
- c. Individual levels of wealth
- d. Having friends or family earning less money
4. Sachweh and Sthamer arguably use an inductive approach. Rather than hypothesizing and then gathering variables, they test quite a few variables, in several combinations, and then run multivariate regression analyses to see which independent variables seem to explain the most variation in the dependent variable. What data do Sachweh and Sthamer use to better understand variation in the dependent variable?
- a. Using panel data from Germany over the last 30 years (the same respondents interviewed repeatedly over time)
- b. Using pooled data from German over the last 30 years (different respondents asked the same questions repeatedly over time)
- c. Using data from a recent survey conducted in Germany
- d. Using data from a variety of surveys (panel & pooled), plus economic data.
5. Why do Sachweh and Sthamer cite Roez, Huijts and Sieben (2019*- they use 2018)?
- a. Sachweh and Sthamer cite Roez, Huijts and Sieben (2019) to illustrate some of the different explanations scholars have suggested that Sachweh and Sthamer will then include in their model.
- b. Sachweh and Sthamer cite Roez, Huijts and Sieben (2019) to highlight previous scholarship that Sachweh and Sthamer think arrived at an incorrect or incomplete conclusion.
- c. Sachweh and Sthamer cite Roez, Huijts and Sieben (2019) to justify their use of a particular set of data or the way they employ a particular type of analysis of that data.
- d. Sachweh and Sthamer cite Roez, Huijts and Sieben (2019) to highlight recent research on issues of inequality
6. What is the dependent variable in Roez, Huijts and Sieben’s (2019A) study?
- a. The extent to which people think that income inequalities in a country are too high.
- b. The extent to which people recognize that income inequalities are high
- c. The extent to which people think that political institutions do not treat everyone fairly.
- d. The extent to which people believe that income inequalities are the result of meritocratic processes.
7. Which of the following is not an independent variable Roez, Huijts and Sieben (2019) use in their model?
- a. A national measure of income inequality
- b. A survey respondent’s self-reported income level.
- c. A survey respondent’s employment status.
- d. A national measure of unemployment.
8. What do Roez, Huijts and Sieben (2019) hypothesize?
- a. Individuals with lower income or education will be more likely to resent individuals with higher income or education when they perceive their society to be meritocratic.
- b. Individuals with lower income or education will be less likely to resent individuals with higher income or education when they perceive their society to be meritocratic.
- c. Individuals with lower income or education will be more likely to support social inequalities when they perceive their society to be meritocratic.
- d. Individuals with lower income or education will be less likely to support social inequalities when they perceive their society to be meritocratic.
9. How would you summarize the rationale Roez, Huijts and Sieben (2019) provide for their hypothesis?
- a. The Roez, Huijts and Sieben (2019) rationalize their hypothesis by arguing that in meritocratic societies, income or education indicate talent and diligence, lower-status individuals are more critical of the status quo since they are so adversely affected by such perceptions of their laziness or lack of ability.
- b. Roez, Huijts and Sieben (2019) rationalize their hypothesis by arguing that systemic oppression, discrimination or racism are often present and, as a result, many people support social inequalities of those who they think deserve to be lower-status individuals.
- c. Roez, Huijts and Sieben (2019) rationalize their hypothesis by arguing that settler-colonial societies often justify systemic inequalities by claiming that they are a meritocracy, but the discrimination that affects lower-status individuals makes them more critical of society than comparable individuals in countries without as much inequality.
- d. Roez, Huijts and Sieben (2019) rationalize their hypothesis by describing research into how lower-status individuals grow to resent those in their country who believe that higher-status individuals have talent and diligence that lower-status individuals lack.
10. Which of the following is NOT a possible explanation for variation in the dependent variable explored by Roez, Huijts and Sieben (2019)?
- a. Individual social position
- b. Beliefs in the causes of social inequality
- c. People’s sense of fairness
- d. Individual ideology (left/liberal or right/conservative)
11. What kind of data do Roez, Huijts and Sieben (2019) use to test their hypothesis?
a. Survey data from many industrial countries only
b. Survey data from Europe only
c. A mix of survey data and aggregate national data from Europe.
d. A mix of survey data and aggregate national data from many industrial countries.
12. What sentence best describes Roez, Huijts and Sieben (2019)’s findings?
a. In countries where there are prevalent meritocratic perceptions, there are large differences between low- and high- income individuals, but not differences by education.
b. In countries where there are prevalent meritocratic perceptions, there are large differences by education, but not between low- and high- income individuals.
c. In countries where there are prevalent meritocratic perceptions, there are large differences between low- and high- income individuals, and by education.
d. In countries where there are prevalent meritocratic perceptions, there are large differences between low- and high- income individuals, and by education, but not where there are prevalent meritocratic perceptions.
13. What sentence best describes the relationship between the two articles about meritocracy and inequality?
a. Both articles come to similar conclusions, but differ on what country or countries are explored, and on some specifics of the demographic groups that are most concerned about inequality.
b. Both articles come to similar conclusions, only differing on which country or countries are explored.
c. The two articles come to very different, contradictory conclusions about the causes and consequences of the observed variation.
d. The two articles share a methodology and a subject matter, but each explores different, but complimentary aspects of related questions about inequality and meritocracy.
REFERENCES:
- Sachweh, Patrick, and Evelyn Sthamer. “Why Do the Affluent Find Inequality Increasingly Unjust? Changing Inequality and Justice Perceptions in Germany, 1994-2014.” European Sociological Review 35, no. 5 (2019): 651-668. PLUS
- Roex, Karlijn LA, Tim Huijts, and Inge Sieben. “Attitudes towards income inequality:’Winners’ versus ‘losers’ of the perceived meritocracy.” Acta Sociologica 62, no. 1 (2019): 47-63.
