Going over this, I don’t see anything particularly interesting. It looks like the ratio of people being highly engaged to not highly engaged per each factor is about the same for males and females in almost all categories. Some of the slight differences that I could find:
Males who rated EAG as important were about twice as likely to be not highly engaged compared to non-males (though the error is high here).
The share of not highly engaged non-males which had ‘personal connection’ as an important factor for involvement was slightly higher than the male counterpart. This slightly reduces the gap between males and non-males when it comes to how important is ‘personal connection’ for involvement for people who are highly engaged.
[Epistemic status: just looked into this briefly out of curiosity, not an official EAS analysis]
When I looked at this briefly in a generalized mixed model, I didn’t find a significant interaction effect for gender * engagement * the specific factor people were evaluating (e.g. EAG or group etc.) which comports with your observation that there doesn’t seem to be anything particularly interesting going on in the contrast between male and non-male interaction with low/high engagement. (In contrast, there were significant fixed effects for the interaction between engagement and the specific factor and gender and the specific factor.) Looking at the specific ‘getting involved factors’ in the interaction effect, it was clear where the only one where there was much of a hint of any interaction with gender * engagement was personal contact, which was “borderline significant” (though I am loathe to read much into that).
Probably the simplest way to illustrate the specific thing you mentioned is with the following two plots: looking at both male and non-male respondents, we can see that highly engaged respondents are more likely to select EAG than less engaged respondents, but the pattern is similar for both male and non-male respondents.
IMO it is hard know what inference to draw from these comparisons.
Firstly, making multiple comparisons obviously raises the risk of a “false-positive” … a result that is merely due to chance/sampling.
Secondly, with ‘multiple hurdles’ it’s hard to know how to compare like for like....
The share of not highly engaged non-males which had ‘personal connection’ as an important factor for involvement was slightly higher than the male counterpart
--> But note that the involvement factors may be driving engagement itself, and doing so differently for males and females
Thanks, yea!
Going over this, I don’t see anything particularly interesting. It looks like the ratio of people being highly engaged to not highly engaged per each factor is about the same for males and females in almost all categories. Some of the slight differences that I could find:
Males who rated EAG as important were about twice as likely to be not highly engaged compared to non-males (though the error is high here).
The share of not highly engaged non-males which had ‘personal connection’ as an important factor for involvement was slightly higher than the male counterpart. This slightly reduces the gap between males and non-males when it comes to how important is ‘personal connection’ for involvement for people who are highly engaged.
[Epistemic status: just looked into this briefly out of curiosity, not an official EAS analysis]
When I looked at this briefly in a generalized mixed model, I didn’t find a significant interaction effect for gender * engagement * the specific factor people were evaluating (e.g. EAG or group etc.) which comports with your observation that there doesn’t seem to be anything particularly interesting going on in the contrast between male and non-male interaction with low/high engagement. (In contrast, there were significant fixed effects for the interaction between engagement and the specific factor and gender and the specific factor.) Looking at the specific ‘getting involved factors’ in the interaction effect, it was clear where the only one where there was much of a hint of any interaction with gender * engagement was personal contact, which was “borderline significant” (though I am loathe to read much into that).
Probably the simplest way to illustrate the specific thing you mentioned is with the following two plots: looking at both male and non-male respondents, we can see that highly engaged respondents are more likely to select EAG than less engaged respondents, but the pattern is similar for both male and non-male respondents.
IMO it is hard know what inference to draw from these comparisons.
Firstly, making multiple comparisons obviously raises the risk of a “false-positive” … a result that is merely due to chance/sampling.
Secondly, with ‘multiple hurdles’ it’s hard to know how to compare like for like....
--> But note that the involvement factors may be driving engagement itself, and doing so differently for males and females