umu.sePublications
Change search
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
BETA
Fairbrother, MalcolmORCID iD iconorcid.org/0000-0002-1400-2141
Publications (6 of 6) Show all publications
Bell, A., Fairbrother, M. & Jones, K. (2019). Fixed and random effects models: making an informed choice. Quality and quantity, 53(2), 1051-1074
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Fixed and random effects models: making an informed choice
2019 (English)In: Quality and quantity, ISSN 0033-5177, E-ISSN 1573-7845, Vol. 53, no 2, p. 1051-1074Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This paper assesses the options available to researchers analysing multilevel (including longitudinal) data, with the aim of supporting good methodological decision-making. Given the confusion in the literature about the key properties of fixed and random effects (FE and RE) models, we present these models’ capabilities and limitations. We also discuss the within-between RE model, sometimes misleadingly labelled a ‘hybrid’ model, showing that it is the most general of the three, with all the strengths of the other two. As such, and because it allows for important extensions—notably random slopes—we argue it should be used (as a starting point at least) in all multilevel analyses. We develop the argument through simulations, evaluating how these models cope with some likely mis-specifications. These simulations reveal that (1) failing to include random slopes can generate anti-conservative standard errors, and (2) assuming random intercepts are Normally distributed, when they are not, introduces only modest biases. These results strengthen the case for the use of, and need for, these models.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer, 2019
Keywords
multilevel models, random effects, fixed effects
National Category
Social Sciences Interdisciplinary
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-150953 (URN)10.1007/s11135-018-0802-x (DOI)
Available from: 2018-08-20 Created: 2018-08-20 Last updated: 2019-04-04Bibliographically approved
Fairbrother, M. (2019). Free traders: elites, democracy, and the rise of globalization. New York: Oxford University Press
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Free traders: elites, democracy, and the rise of globalization
2019 (English)Book (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

Today's global economy was largely established by political events and decisions in the 1980s and 90s, when scores of nations opened up their economies to the forces of globalization. In Free Traders, Malcolm Fairbrother argues that politicians' embrace of globalization was much less motivated by public preferences than by the agendas of businesspeople and other elites. Drawing on over one hundred interviews with decision-makers, and analyses of archival materials from Canada, Mexico, and the U.S., Fairbrother tells the story of how each country negotiated and ratified two agreements that substantially opened and integrated their economies: the 1989 Canada-U.S. and trilateral 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement. Contrary to what many commentators believe, these agreements-like free trade elsewhere-were based less on mainstream, neoclassical economics than on the informal, self-serving economic ideas of business. While the stakes in the globalization debate remain high, Free Traders uses a comparative-historical approach to sharpen our understanding of how globalization arose in the past to provide us with clearer trajectory for how it will develop in the future.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
New York: Oxford University Press, 2019. p. 253
National Category
Sociology (excluding Social Work, Social Psychology and Social Anthropology) Globalisation Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-162386 (URN)9780190635466 (ISBN)9780190635497 (ISBN)9780190635459 (ISBN)
Available from: 2019-08-19 Created: 2019-08-19 Last updated: 2019-11-15Bibliographically approved
Schmidt-Catran, A. W., Fairbrother, M. & Andreß, H.-J. (2019). Multilevel Models for the Analysis of Comparative Survey Data: Common Problems and Some Solutions. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 71, 99-128
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Multilevel Models for the Analysis of Comparative Survey Data: Common Problems and Some Solutions
2019 (English)In: Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, ISSN 0023-2653, E-ISSN 1861-891X, Vol. 71, p. 99-128Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This paper provides an overview over the application of mixed models (multilevel models) to comparative survey data where the context units of interest are countries. Such analyses have gained much popularity in the last two decades but they also come with a variety of challenges, some of which are discussed here. A focus lies on the small-N problem, influential cases (outliers) and the issue of omitted variables at the country level. Summarizing the methodological literature, the paper provides recommendations for applied researchers when possible or otherwise points to the more detailed literature. Some solutions for the small-N problem and omitted variable bias are discussed in detail, recommending the pooling of multiple survey waves to increase statistical power and to allow for the estimation of within-country effects, thereby controlling for unobserved heterogeneity. All issues are illustrated using an empirical example with data from the European Social Survey. The online appendix provides detailed syntax to adopt the presented procedures to researchers’ own data.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer, 2019
Keywords
Mixed models, Multilevel models, Small-N problem, Influential cases, Omitted variable bias
National Category
Sociology (excluding Social Work, Social Psychology and Social Anthropology)
Research subject
Sociology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-158817 (URN)10.1007/s11577-019-00607-9 (DOI)000472940500005 ()
Note

Supplement: 1

Special Issue: SI

Available from: 2019-05-09 Created: 2019-05-09 Last updated: 2019-07-26Bibliographically approved
Fairbrother, N., Hart, T. A. & Fairbrother, M. (2019). Open Relationship Prevalence, Characteristics, and Correlates in a Nationally Representative Sample of Canadian Adults. Journal of Sex Research, 56(6), 695-704
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Open Relationship Prevalence, Characteristics, and Correlates in a Nationally Representative Sample of Canadian Adults
2019 (English)In: Journal of Sex Research, ISSN 0022-4499, E-ISSN 1559-8519, Vol. 56, no 6, p. 695-704Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Open relationships are those in which individuals agree to participate in sexual and/or emotional and romantic interactions with more than one partner. Accurate estimates of the prevalence of open relationships, based on representative, unbiased samples, are few, and there are none from outside of the United States. We present findings from a nationally representative sample of 2,003 Canadian adults, administered in 2017 via an online questionnaire. Overall, 2.4% of all participants, and 4.0% of those currently in a relationship, reported currently being in an open relationship. One-fifth of participants reported prior engagement in an open relationship, and 12% reported open as their ideal relationship type. Men, compared with women, were more likely to report prior open relationship engagement and to identify open as their ideal relationship type. Younger participants were more likely both to engage in and to prefer open relationships. Relationship satisfaction did not differ significantly between monogamous and open relationships. Having a match between one's actual relationship type and one's preferred relationship type was associated with greater relationship satisfaction. Findings suggest that, while currently only a small proportion of the population is in an open relationship, interest in open relationships is higher, particularly among younger adults, and open appears to be a viable and important relationship type.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Taylor & Francis, 2019
National Category
Psychology (excluding Applied Psychology)
Research subject
Psychology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-158819 (URN)10.1080/00224499.2019.1580667 (DOI)000480584400001 ()30932711 (PubMedID)2-s2.0-85063690129 (Scopus ID)
Note

Errata The Journal of Sex Research (2019) 56(6), W1. DOI:10.1080/00224499.2019.1607666

Available from: 2019-05-09 Created: 2019-05-09 Last updated: 2019-08-30Bibliographically approved
Fairbrother, M., Johansson Sevä, I. & Kulin, J. (2019). Political trust and the relationship between climate change beliefs and support for fossil fuel taxes: Evidence from a survey of 23 European countries. Global Environmental Change, 59, Article ID 102003.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Political trust and the relationship between climate change beliefs and support for fossil fuel taxes: Evidence from a survey of 23 European countries
2019 (English)In: Global Environmental Change, ISSN 0959-3780, E-ISSN 1872-9495, Vol. 59, article id 102003Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Taxes on fossil fuels could be a useful policy tool for governments seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, such taxes are politically challenging to introduce, as public opinion is usually hostile to them. Prior studies have found that attitudes toward carbon and other environmental taxes reflect not just people's beliefs and concerns about the problems these taxes address, but also their trust in their country's politicians and political system. Using multilevel models fitted to data collected in 2016 on 42,401 individuals in 23 European countries, we show for the first time that these two factors interact. Among Europeans who distrust their country's politicians, political parties, and parliament, or who live in countries with low levels of political trust, being aware and concerned about climate change is at most weakly associated with support for taxes on fossil fuels. Europeans with high political trust, on the other hand, tend to be much more supportive of fossil fuel taxes if they also believe in the reality and dangers of anthropogenic climate change. Cross-nationally, the nations whose populations are most supportive of higher taxes on fossil fuels are not those that are more aware and concerned about climate change; rather, they are those with the highest levels of political trust.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2019
Keywords
Environmental attitudes, Carbon tax, Climate change, Political trust, European Social Survey, Multilevel model
National Category
Sociology (excluding Social Work, Social Psychology and Social Anthropology)
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-164690 (URN)10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.102003 (DOI)2-s2.0-85073954553 (Scopus ID)
Funder
Swedish Research Council, 01143Wallenberg Foundations, 2014.0034Riksbankens Jubileumsfond, NHS14-2035:1
Available from: 2019-10-28 Created: 2019-10-28 Last updated: 2019-11-04Bibliographically approved
Bell, A., Jones, K. & Fairbrother, M. (2018). Understanding and misunderstanding group mean centering: a commentary on Kelley et al.'s dangerous practice. Quality and quantity, 52(5), 2031-2036
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Understanding and misunderstanding group mean centering: a commentary on Kelley et al.'s dangerous practice
2018 (English)In: Quality and quantity, ISSN 0033-5177, E-ISSN 1573-7845, Vol. 52, no 5, p. 2031-2036Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Kelley et al. argue that group-mean-centering covariates in multilevel models is dangerous, since—they claim—it generates results that are biased and misleading. We argue instead that what is dangerous is Kelley et al.’s unjustified assault on a simple statistical procedure that is enormously helpful, if not vital, in analyses of multilevel data. Kelley et al.’s arguments appear to be based on a faulty algebraic operation, and on a simplistic argument that parameter estimates from models with mean-centered covariates must be wrong merely because they are different than those from models with uncentered covariates. They also fail to explain why researchers should dispense with mean-centering when it is central to the estimation of fixed effects models—a common alternative approach to the analysis of clustered data, albeit one increasingly incorporated within a random effects framework. Group-mean-centering is, in short, no more dangerous than any other statistical procedure, and should remain a normal part of multilevel data analyses where it can be judiciously employed to good effect.

Keywords
Multilevel models, Random effects, Group-mean-centering, Mundlak, Fixed effects
National Category
Sociology (excluding Social Work, Social Psychology and Social Anthropology)
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-142213 (URN)10.1007/s11135-017-0593-5 (DOI)000440115300003 ()
Available from: 2017-11-25 Created: 2017-11-25 Last updated: 2018-09-04Bibliographically approved
Organisations
Identifiers
ORCID iD: ORCID iD iconorcid.org/0000-0002-1400-2141

Search in DiVA

Show all publications