how critically open-minded are we? a new synthetic social...

Dealing with Complexity in Society:From Plurality of Data to Synthetic Indicators

How Critically Open-minded Are We? A new synthetic social index

S A Hamed Hosseini,The University of Newcastle

Lawrence J SahaThe Australian National University

synthetic social index

September 17th and 18th, 2015 1

The Australian National University

Opening SessionOUTLINE

1.1.1.1. IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction– Aims: an open-minded approach to composing an open-mindedness

indexindex– Social and theoretical background

2.2.2.2. Conceptual FrameworkConceptual FrameworkConceptual FrameworkConceptual Framework– Open-mindedness: a cognitive quality or a collective feature?– Critical Open-mindedness: why critical?

3.3.3.3. Constructing a Synthetic Social Index for Critical OpenConstructing a Synthetic Social Index for Critical OpenConstructing a Synthetic Social Index for Critical OpenConstructing a Synthetic Social Index for Critical Open----mindedness mindedness mindedness mindedness – Constructing Composite Dimensional Indicators of Critical Openness:

Social, Political, Cultural, Economic, Environmental – Synthesizing Dimensional Composite Indicators: Constructing COI

Dealing with Complexity in society 2Hosseini, S A & Saha, L J Dealing with Complexity in society 2

– Synthesizing Dimensional Composite Indicators: Constructing COI– An Integrative Pragmatic Method of Composition,

4.4.4.4. External ValidationExternal ValidationExternal ValidationExternal Validation– Validation of COI and its dimensional CIs through Regression and Path Analysis;

External Validity, Content Validity, Reliability of Composite, – Disaggregation through path analysis and typological analysis

5.5.5.5. Findings and discussion Findings and discussion Findings and discussion Findings and discussion

Opening SessionINTRODUCTION

Aims

1. (Re-)introduce ‘critical open-mindedness’ as a new sociological concept, which can be employed particularly in the studies of concept, which can be employed particularly in the studies of social attitudes, social values, identities, and racial and perceptual discriminations.

2. Develop a relevant Synthetic Social IndexSynthetic Social IndexSynthetic Social IndexSynthetic Social Index comprising five social sub-indicators/dimensions for the purpose of both primary and secondary quantitative data analyses.

3. By processing the secondary data produced through the World


3. By processing the secondary data produced through the World Values Surveys in Australia in 2005 and 2012, the application of the ‘Critical Open‘Critical Open‘Critical Open‘Critical Open----mindedness Index’ (COI) mindedness Index’ (COI) mindedness Index’ (COI) mindedness Index’ (COI) is examined and the findings are discussed.


Aims

4. Develop an index of Cognitive OpenCognitive OpenCognitive OpenCognitive Open----mindedness mindedness mindedness mindedness based on a number of social-psychological indicators drawn from the same data number of social-psychological indicators drawn from the same data sets.

5. Propose an integrative approach that aims to flexibly draw on the advantages of existing methods. The decisions on how to integrate methods of composition are pragmatically made, depending on the nature of data, the validity of the end results and the objectives of the study.

6. Propose a new method of penalization in this process based on the


6. Propose a new method of penalization in this process based on the ‘variation/deviation from the maximum’ across the sub-indicators.

7. Examine the external validity of the results based on the regression of the COI on sensibly predicting factors in order to validate the CIs and thereby choose the most suitable method of integration.


Social and Theoretical Background

• Australia and the question of multiculturalism, economic challenges in the age of neoliberal globalism, economic challenges in the age of neoliberal globalism, terrorism, radicalism, rise of Islamophobia, new racism, refugee crisesrefugee crisesrefugee crisesrefugee crises (boat people), climate change, growing inequalities and austerity regimes, youth disenfranchisement with democracy, gay marriage, etc.

Question of open-mindedness in such context where tolerance and mutual understanding across social chasms are vital for the social cohesion


chasms are vital for the social cohesionCan the currently heightening emotional empathies for refugees in Australia (Europe and other Western societies) be translated into broader socio-political actions for addressing the structural roots of the crisis.


Social and Theoretical Background

• In cognitive psychologycognitive psychologycognitive psychologycognitive psychology, openness is seen as intra-individual ideational capacity• In political and social psychologypolitical and social psychologypolitical and social psychologypolitical and social psychology, cognitive/personality studies of dogmatism-intolerance among different social groups have also focused on open-intolerance among different social groups have also focused on open-mindedness as an individual’s attribute more distinctively defined in relation to out-groups, ideologies and social values

• Models and scalesscalesscalesscales are developed, from F scale to D scale to DOG and RWA scales, etc.

• Management and organizational studiesManagement and organizational studiesManagement and organizational studiesManagement and organizational studies: open-mindedness in relationships and its impact on team performance

• Educational studiesEducational studiesEducational studiesEducational studies: Drawing on cognitive psychology, some researchers in this field are interested to investigate the relationship between democratic educational systems and student’s ability to pursue inquiry, to be self-critical and


educational systems and student’s ability to pursue inquiry, to be self-critical and learn from experience.

• Open-mindedness has also appeared as a philosophical conceptphilosophical conceptphilosophical conceptphilosophical concept. The implications of open-mindedness as a intellectual property or virtue (i.e. “willingness to form and revise ideas in the light of a critical review of evidence and argument”) for empirical studies

• No significant sociological attempt to address openness but there are many No significant sociological attempt to address openness but there are many No significant sociological attempt to address openness but there are many No significant sociological attempt to address openness but there are many studies of issues that can be directly related to itstudies of issues that can be directly related to itstudies of issues that can be directly related to itstudies of issues that can be directly related to it!

Opening SessionCONCETPTUAL FRAMEWORK

OpenOpenOpenOpen----mindedness: a cognitive quality or a collective feature?mindedness: a cognitive quality or a collective feature?mindedness: a cognitive quality or a collective feature?mindedness: a cognitive quality or a collective feature?

• Rokeach’s D scale, • Criticisms of Rokeach, Controversies around the nature • Criticisms of Rokeach, Controversies around the nature of openness;

• A review of revised scales since the 1960s. • The dilemmas of defining Open-mindedness:– Cognitive vs. Collective; personal or societal property?– Passive vs. Critical, – Moral virtue or another ideological tool,


– Moral virtue or another ideological tool, – Contextual or universal,

• Our approach is integrative rather than reductionist, explore the relationship between the cognitive and the collective.


OpenOpenOpenOpen----mindedness: a cognitive quality or a collective feature?mindedness: a cognitive quality or a collective feature?mindedness: a cognitive quality or a collective feature?mindedness: a cognitive quality or a collective feature?

CognitiveOpenness1 CognitiveOpenness1 CognitiveOpenness1 CognitiveOpenness1 is composed of the following indicators/questions after their adjustments for direction: indicators/questions after their adjustments for direction:

Q4e (teaching tolerance to children), Q4j (teaching obedience to children), Q6 (trusting most people), Q11 (people are fair to me), Q20b (I seek to be myself regardless of what others think), Q23 (country’s aim 1), Q24 (country’s aim 2), Q27a (Schwartz personality: Creative and Innovative), Q27e (Personality: benevolent), Q27j (Personality: Critical but not rejectionist towards traditions), Q40 (non-fatalistic view), Q43d (critical


Q27j (Personality: Critical but not rejectionist towards traditions), Q40 (non-fatalistic view), Q43d (critical trusting of unknown person), Q45a (a strong leader needed), Q45b (experts must rule). After an initial factor analysis, the following composite indicators were created and standardized:


Critical Openness: Why ‘Critical’

Therefore, by broadening the concept of ‘critical open-mindedness’ we relate it to the capacity of the subjects to mindedness’ we relate it to the capacity of the subjects to be: (1) socially inclusive in their relationships with marginalized groups and in their perception of social Self (like the way they define citizenship and extend civil rights to different groups); (2) tolerant towards others with different identities and backgrounds while avoiding any prejudgment on the bases of the other’s collective identity; (3) critical of stereotypical and ‘essentialist’ perceptions of other groups or other beliefs, faiths, cultures, or languages;


other groups or other beliefs, faiths, cultures, or languages; (4) mindful of serious social and ecological challenges that threaten not only themselves but also more vulnerable communities other than theirs; (5) sensitive to unfairness, injustice and social inequalities;


Critical Openness: Why ‘Critical’

(6) willing to protest and spend their resources to create a more ecologically secure and more just society for more ecologically secure and more just society for everyone; (7) commitment to democratic rights and to be aware of the necessity of the equal distribution of material or economic resources across social groups as a precondition for a meaningful democracy where everyone not only has the right but also the opportunity to autonomously take part in


opportunity to autonomously take part in decision/policy making processes; and finally (8) willing to have an inclusive notion of ‘people’ and to put the interests of the ‘people’ above the interests of social institutions like markets or governments.

Opening SessionConstructing a Synthetic Social Index for Critical OpenConstructing a Synthetic Social Index for Critical OpenConstructing a Synthetic Social Index for Critical OpenConstructing a Synthetic Social Index for Critical Open----mindedness mindedness mindedness mindedness

“The World Values Survey (WVS) is a worldwide network of social scientists studying changing values and their impact on social and political life. The WVS in collaboration with EVS (European Values

Constructing a Synthetic Social Constructing a Synthetic Social Constructing a Synthetic Social Constructing a Synthetic Social Index for Critical OpenIndex for Critical OpenIndex for Critical OpenIndex for Critical Open----mindedness mindedness mindedness mindedness

political life. The WVS in collaboration with EVS (European Values Study) carried out representative national surveys in 97 societies containing almost 90 percent of the world's population.”

Australian Social Value Surveys in 2005 and 2012 conducted by the Australian National University.

In 2005: self completion, mailed, 1421 respondents (out of 3273 total eligible sample members). Response Rate: 43%

In 2012: Total of 5000 sample members, Completed surveys 1,477,


In 2012: Total of 5000 sample members, Completed surveys 1,477, 29.5% (1,286 hardcopy surveys and 191 online); Non response 3,184 63.7%

Both the questionnaire and data files can be downloaded from their archive.

Opening SessionConstructing a Synthetic Social IndexConstructing a Synthetic Social IndexConstructing a Synthetic Social IndexConstructing a Synthetic Social Index

Constructing Composite Dimensional Indicators of Critical OpennessConstructing Composite Dimensional Indicators of Critical OpennessConstructing Composite Dimensional Indicators of Critical OpennessConstructing Composite Dimensional Indicators of Critical Openness

First round: dimensional composite indicators: Social, Political, Cultural, Economic, EnvironmentalCultural, Economic, Environmental

Social: composed of statements that measure social trust, inclusiveness in social relations, anti-sexism, anti-orthodoxy, anti-faithism, non-essentialist worldviews,

Political: two dimensions: democratic consciousness and democratic commitment. Statements that measure perception of democracy and democratic values and perception of the


of democracy and democratic values and perception of the status quo.

Cultural: inclusiveness towards culturally and ethnically groups, inclusive definition of citizenship, appreciation of ethnic diversity, openness towards immigration, etc.

Opening SessionConstructing a Synthetic Social IndexConstructing a Synthetic Social IndexConstructing a Synthetic Social IndexConstructing a Synthetic Social Index

Constructing Dimensional Composite Indicators of Critical OpennessConstructing Dimensional Composite Indicators of Critical OpennessConstructing Dimensional Composite Indicators of Critical OpennessConstructing Dimensional Composite Indicators of Critical Openness

Economic: positions about economic equality, private vs. Public ownership of economy, responsibility of self/individuals vs. ownership of economy, responsibility of self/individuals vs. Government’s, competition, etc.

Environmental: caring about nature, willingness to give money for conservation, willingness to protest for an ecological cause, giving priority to ecology vs. Economy.

---------------------------------------

COI = synthesis of (Social, Political, Cultural, Economic, Ecological).


Ecological).

----------------------------------

Cognitive: statements of ‘general trust’, ‘anti-authoritarian views’, ‘tolerance and caring’, and ‘being innovative and creative’,

Opening SessionConstructing a Synthetic Social Index

An Integrative Pragmatic Method of Composition,

1. Selection of indicators based on the 1. Selection of indicators based on the conceptual framework through an inter-subjective/dialogical and academically open-minded method, discussion of ideological backdrops;

2. Making adjustments for directions and the


2. Making adjustments for directions and the imputation of missing values through an inter-subjective process,



3. Normalization through the calculation of S scores of sub-indicators: Sj = (xj – min)/(max – min), Sjof sub-indicators: Sj = (xj – min)/(max – min), Sjranges between 0 and 1. It avoids negative values. j = number of sub-indicators.

4. Checking the reliability of the scale (Cronbach's Cronbach's Cronbach's Cronbach's alpha)alpha)alpha)alpha) for each externally defined dimension against the reliability of components found through factor analysis.

5. Running Principle Component Analysis (PCA) of S scored sub-indicators to estimate the weights, Eigen


5. Running Principle Component Analysis (PCA) of S scored sub-indicators to estimate the weights, Eigen values above 1 (or above 0.9 when only one component arises and is less than 50% of total variation). Inter-subjective adjustment of the weights if necessary.

Content Validity of Cognitive Openness: factor analysis of elementary indicators and the compatibility of formative and reflective

Checking the content validity of CI

Dealing with Complexity in society 16

Dealing with Complexity in society

Hosseini, S A & Saha, L J Dealing with Complexity in society 16



• To estimate the weights: Weights are the product of the [Rotated Component Matrix in absolute values] by the [Matrix of “% of variance explained by selected factors”]. [Rotated Component Matrix in absolute values] by the [Matrix of “% of variance explained by selected factors”]. (see T. Hlavsa 2010).

• Alternatively, Component/Factor variables can be used instead of original variables to compose the CI, while being weighted based on their associated % of variance. However, decision needs to be made as to what method should be finally adopted depending on the highest external validity of the CI resulted from each of the above methods.


the CI resulted from each of the above methods.• Sub-indicators in each dimensional CI with lower weight (due to limited variation) can be concaved. This needs to be decided after considering the consequences. (concaved Sj = Sj– 0.2 exp(-2.Sj)) then weight can be re-estimated.



6. Dimensional CI = (∑ wj * sj)/∑wj7. Relative Penalization of cases depending on 7. Relative Penalization of cases depending on their variation from maximum value across sub-indicators (conditioned to the improvement of external validity)Penalty rate for case i: average of “variation or deviation” from maximum value across sub-indicators PRi=VM/(m * Max(VM)) (m is the


indicators PRi=VM/(m * Max(VM)) (m is the number of sub-indicators, Max(VM) is the maximum value of variable VM; VM is:

VM = ∑ |Sj – Max(Sj)| or ∑(Sj –Max(Sj))2


An Integrative Pragmatic Method of Composition

• CI-pen (CI after the penalization of cases)

• CI-peni = CIi – PRi

8.Compare the regression of CI and CI-pen on a number of factors which are logically or according to the literature are expected to predict the CI. Use an Automatic Linear Regression (by SPSS 19+) of CI vs CI-pen on the predictors compare the


of CI vs CI-pen on the predictors compare the results in terms of the predictability and the significant predictors. The CI with higher R square and/or combination of logically expected predictors should be finally chosen.

Opening SessionAn Integrative Pragmatic Method of Composition

9. Social Synthetic Index of Critical Openness, follow the same procedure from Step 3 onward. Dealing

Constructing a Synthetic Social Index

the same procedure from Step 3 onward. Dealing with dimensional CIs as new sub-indicators.

10. Final results will be COI composed of dimensional CIs, COIpen as the COI after the penalization of the cases, and COI

penas the composition of dimensional

CIpens11. Test the external validity of results through Regression or Path analysis. Compare and choose the most valid version of CI.


Regression or Path analysis. Compare and choose the most valid version of CI.

12. Disaggregation of COI through path analysis and the typology of respondents in terms of the relations between dimensions.

Opening SessionConstructing a Synthetic Index

Penalization based on deviation from the mean across dimensions

• X1, X2 and X3 are three qualities of a product • X1, X2 and X3 are three qualities of a product and are equally important






Xpen2=MEAN(X1, X2, X3) - (ABS(X1 - Max(X1, X2, X3)) + ABS(X2 - Max(X1, X2, X3)) + ABS(X3 - Max(X1, X2, X3))) / 8.Xpen4=Xmean - VaryMax2 ** 2/ (3 * 5.66)

VaryMax2=SQRT((X1 - Max) ** 2 + (X2- Max) ** 2 + (X3 - Max) ** 2) – standard deviation from max

Opening SessionTitle Section 1Title Section 2Title Section 3

Title Section 4



Opening SessionValidation of CIs

External Validation through linear regression (before penalization)


Opening SessionValidation of a CI

External Validation through linear regression (after penalization)


Distribution of CIs

Critical Open-mindednessCognitive Open-mindedness


Distribution of CIs

Social Open-mindedness

Cultural Open-mindedness


Distribution of CIs

Economic Open-mindedness Environmental Open-mindednessEnvironmental Open-mindedness


Distribution of CIs

Political Open-mindedness


Comparing dimensions (means)

1

Social

Mean of the Dimensions of

COI

COI

0.6308

0.5553

0.5169

0.5803

0

0.5

CulturalEnvironmental


0.7338

PoliticalEconomic


Comparing dimensions (means)

1

Trust

Dimensions of Cognitive

Openness

Cognitive

0.6247

0.5840.6529 0

0.5

Anti-authoritarianInnovative-Creative


0.8083

Tolerance-Care


Opening SessionValidation of CI

External Validation – Automated Linear Regression of Cognitive Openness on predictors



External Validation – Automated Regression of Critical Open-mindedness on its predictors includign Cognitive Openness as a CI



External Validation – Automated Regression of Critical Openness on the Components of Cognitive Openness and other predictors



External Validation – Automated Regression of Socail Openess on the predictors including the dimensions of Cognitive openness



External Validation – Automated Linear Regression of Cultural Openness on its predictors includng the dimensions of Cognitive Opneness



External Validation – Automated Linear Regression of Environmental Openness on its predictors includng the dimensions of Cognitive Opneness



External Validation – Automated Linear Regression of Economic Openness on its predictors includng the dimensions of Cognitive Opneness



External Validation – Automated Linear Regression of Political Openness on its predictors includng the dimensions of Cognitive Opneness


Opening SessionConclusion

Findings and Discussion

• Critical Open-mindedness as a Synthetic index is composed of five dimensional CIs (social, cultural, composed of five dimensional CIs (social, cultural, political, economic and environmental). The index appears to be robust and externally valid enough. The Australian society in 2005 can be described as a slightly open-minded society in all five dimensions (slightly above 0.5 out of 1), more in politics (0.73) and less in economy (0.51) and culture (0.55). Socio-Cognitively,


economy (0.51) and culture (0.55). Socio-Cognitively, the individuals also show levels of openness higher than 0.5 out of 1, with highest level of ‘tolerance and care’ (0.8) but lowest in terms of anti-authoritarian personality (0.58).



• Only 31 percent of variation in Cognitive Openness can be explained/related to socio-economic predictors can be explained/related to socio-economic predictors showing the relative independence of this indicator from socio-economic conditions. However, significant but small increases of Cognitive Openness are found to be associated with increases in age, ethnic background (more Western), education, confidence in humanitarian organizations, tendency towards the


humanitarian organizations, tendency towards the political Left, political activism and confidence in labour union, more cognitive nature of tasks at work, optimism, and cosmopolitan sense of belonging.



• According to our Automatic Linear Modeling, Critical Openness is more dependent on socio-economic factors than Cognitive openness does. However, it is determined by cognitive openness (as one of its most However, it is determined by cognitive openness (as one of its most important predictors). It is also significantly and positively associated with tendency towards political Left, cosmopolitan sense of belonging, confidence in environmental organizations, education level, confidence in humanitarian organizations, interest in politics, and more independence at work.

• Although Australians at the personal/cognitive level show higher levels of ‘tolerance and care’ and lower levels of anti-authoritarian views, they ironically demonstrate higher levels of political openness and lower levels of cultural and economic openness at the collective level. This indicates a


of cultural and economic openness at the collective level. This indicates a limitation in their ability to translate their personal qualities of openness to their societal attitudes, except when the individual is involved in political activism, receives higher levels of education, experience discrimination, and has a stronger cosmopolitan identity and confidence in humanitarian and/or environmental organizations.

how critically open-minded are we? a new synthetic social...

Documents