IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v37y2009i4p599-617.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Reply to Zax's (2002) Critique of Grofman and Migalski (1988)

Author

Listed:
  • Bernard Grofman

    (University of California, Irvine, bgrofman@uci.edu)

  • Matt A. Barreto

    (University of Washington)

Abstract

The authors reply to Zax's critique of the double-equation method for ecological regression and of the specific extension to it proposed by Grofman and Migalski. Although Zax does correct two minor errors in Grofman and Migalski's statement of the double-equation approach, neither of those errors affected the final calculations reported in their article. Furthermore, nothing Zax reports affects their fundamental conclusion that double-equation methods can be superior to single-equation techniques if there is substantial error in the measurement of the independent variable. In particular, by analyzing an election for which, from exit polls, the ``true'' parameters of Hispanic and non-Hispanic levels of political cohesion are known, the authors show that double-equation ecological regression estimates derived from registration data are highly accurate in reproducing the true individual-level behavioral parameters (group means).

Suggested Citation

  • Bernard Grofman & Matt A. Barreto, 2009. "A Reply to Zax's (2002) Critique of Grofman and Migalski (1988)," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 37(4), pages 599-617, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:37:y:2009:i:4:p:599-617
    DOI: 10.1177/0049124109334794
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124109334794
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0049124109334794?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeffrey S. Zax, 2002. "Comment on “Estimating the Extent of Racially Polarized Voting in Multicandidate Contests†by Bernard Grofman and Michael Migalski," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 31(1), pages 75-86, August.
    2. Andrew Gelman & David K. Park & Stephen Ansolabehere & Phillip N. Price & Lorraine C. Minnite, 2001. "Models, assumptions and model checking in ecological regressions," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 164(1), pages 101-118.
    3. Baodong Liu, 2001. "The Positive Effect of Black Density on White Crossover Voting: Reconsidering Social Interaction Theory," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 82(3), pages 602-615, September.
    4. Wendy K. Tam Cho & Brian J. Gaines, 2004. "The Limits of Ecological Inference: The Case of Split‐Ticket Voting," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(1), pages 152-171, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Baodong Liu, 2007. "EI Extended Model and the Fear of Ecological Fallacy," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 36(1), pages 3-25, August.
    2. Aiyar, Anaka & Cummins, Joseph R., 2021. "An age profile perspective on two puzzles in global child health: The Indian Enigma & economic growth," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    3. Marta Benet & Patricia Celi-Medina & Montserrat Fernández & Sandra Ezquerra, 2022. "The COVID-19 Pandemic in Care Homes: An Exploration of Its Impact across Regions in Spain," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-16, August.
    4. Elaine B. Sharp & Mark R. Joslyn, 2008. "Culture, Segregation, and Tolerance in Urban America," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 89(3), pages 573-591, September.
    5. Lang, Corey & Pearson-Merkowitz, Shanna, 2022. "Aggregate data yield biased estimates of voter preferences," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    6. Prendergast, Patrick & Pearson-Merkowitz, Shanna & Lang, Corey, 2019. "The individual determinants of support for open space bond referendums," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 258-268.
    7. Roberto Colombi & Antonio Forcina, 2016. "Latent class models for ecological inference on voters transitions," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 25(4), pages 501-517, November.
    8. Gillian A. Lancaster & Mick Green & Steven Lane, 2006. "Reducing bias in ecological studies: an evaluation of different methodologies," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 169(4), pages 681-700, October.
    9. Herrera Gómez, Marcos, 2008. "Una introducción al análisis multinivel: ¿La demanda individual de salud es afectada por el médico de cabecera? [An introduction to multilevel analysis: Is the individual demand for health is affec," MPRA Paper 35267, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Olga Orlanski & Günther G. Schulze, 2017. "The Determinants of Islamophobia - An Empirical Analysis of the Swiss Minaret Referendum," CESifo Working Paper Series 6741, CESifo.
    11. Russell Weaver, 2015. "The Racial Context of Convenience Voting Cutbacks," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(3), pages 21582440155, August.
    12. Petropoulos, Fotios & Apiletti, Daniele & Assimakopoulos, Vassilios & Babai, Mohamed Zied & Barrow, Devon K. & Ben Taieb, Souhaib & Bergmeir, Christoph & Bessa, Ricardo J. & Bijak, Jakub & Boylan, Joh, 2022. "Forecasting: theory and practice," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 705-871.
      • Fotios Petropoulos & Daniele Apiletti & Vassilios Assimakopoulos & Mohamed Zied Babai & Devon K. Barrow & Souhaib Ben Taieb & Christoph Bergmeir & Ricardo J. Bessa & Jakub Bijak & John E. Boylan & Jet, 2020. "Forecasting: theory and practice," Papers 2012.03854, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2022.
    13. Irene L. Hudson & Linda Moore & Eric J. Beh & David G. Steel, 2010. "Ecological inference techniques: an empirical evaluation using data describing gender and voter turnout at New Zealand elections, 1893–1919," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 173(1), pages 185-213, January.
    14. Puig, Xavier & Ginebra, Josep, 2014. "A cluster analysis of vote transitions," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 328-344.
    15. Staniswalis, Joan G., 2006. "On fitting generalized non-linear models with varying coefficients," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 50(7), pages 1818-1839, April.
    16. Álvaro J. Corral & David L. Leal, 2020. "Latinos por Trump? Latinos and the 2016 Presidential Election," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 101(3), pages 1115-1131, May.
    17. Amanda Kennard, 2021. "My Brother’s Keeper: Other-regarding preferences and concern for global climate change," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 345-376, April.
    18. Samira Rousselière & Gaëlle Petit & Thomas Coisnon & Anne Musson & Damien Rousselière, 2022. "A few drinks behind—Alcohol price and income elasticities in Europe: A microeconometric note," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(1), pages 301-315, February.
    19. Christine H. Roch & Michael Rushton, 2008. "Racial Context and Voting over Taxes," Public Finance Review, , vol. 36(5), pages 614-634, September.
    20. Sarah Moon, 2024. "Partial Identification of Individual-Level Parameters Using Aggregate Data in a Nonparametric Model," Papers 2403.07236, arXiv.org, revised May 2024.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:37:y:2009:i:4:p:599-617. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.