A Caution on Comparisons

Abstract

The family is the foundation of our society. By learning about family life in other countries, we learn about our own lives and we realize that we all belong to one big family—the family of mankind. … [Studying families of the world] could help us to get closer to people in distant countries and support the knowledge that “we are one.” — Liv Ullmann, UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador     

Nonresponse in the American Time Use Survey: Who Is Missing from the Data and How Much Does It Matter?

This article examines nonresponse in a large government survey,the American Time Use Survey (ATUS), which interviews personsin households previously interviewed in the Current PopulationSurvey. The response rate for the ATUS has been below 60 percentfor the first two years of its existence, raising questionsabout whether the results can be generalized to the target population.The article begins with an analysis of the types of nonresponseencountered in the ATUS. Noncontact accounts for roughly 60percent of ATUS nonresponse, with refusals accounting for roughly40 percent. We find little support for the hypothesis that busypeople are less likely to respond to the ATUS but find considerablesupport for the hypothesis that people who are weakly integratedinto their communities are less likely to respond, mostly becausethey are less likely to be contacted. When we compare aggregateestimates of time use calculated using the ATUS base weightswithout any adjustment for nonresponse, estimates calculatedusing the ATUS final weights with a nonresponse adjustment,and estimates calculated using weights that incorporate ourown nonresponse adjustment based on a propensity model, we findsome modest differences, but the three sets of estimates arebroadly similar. The article ends with suggestions for furtherresearch and analysis.     

How Subgroup Interests and Reputations Moderate the Effect of Organizational Identification on Cooperation

Two experiments tested the effects of organizational identification on individual decisions to cooperate. These decisions occurred in the context of a nested social dilemma in which individuals, subgroups, and the larger collective each held distinct and incompatible interests. In Study 1, when the two subgroups in the dilemma were from different real organizations, higher organizational identification caused lower cooperation with the collective (and higher cooperation with the subgroup) when the opposing organization had a purportedly individualistic culture and reputation. The results of Study 2 supported this interpretation by showing that organizational identification had a negative effect on collective cooperation, and a corresponding positive effect on subgroup cooperation, when decision makers perceived the opposing department to have an individualistic reputation. I discuss the implications of these results for organizations that try to elicit cooperation by fostering members’ organizational identification.