3
$\begingroup$

In the study of tweets pre- and post- metoo (set as Nov 2017), we are looking at whether there is gender differences in the use of masculine language in tweets for male and female social media users.

We have tweets collected for the period 2008-23 for 400 users. Some of these users were only active on Twitter before metoo and some only after metoo. But a majority of them have tweets in both the pre- and post- metoo period.

We are currently specifying the model as follows:

M1 = lmer(masculine_lang ~ gender * post_metoo + tweet_created_year + (1|user_id)

Where tweet_created_year is a factor variable.

We are not sure if this is a correct specification.

We have two major concerns.

  • One, should we be using tweet_created_year as factor or as numeric (with year 2008 coded as 0, 2009 as 1, and so on)?
  • Two, should we include tweet_created_year as random effect as follows:

M2 = lmer(masculine_lang ~ gender * post_metoo + tweet_created_year + (1 + tweet_created_year|user_id)

Alternatively, should we have the following specification?

M3 = lmer(masculine_lang ~ gender * post_metoo + (1|user_id) + (1|user_id:tweet_created_year)

We are confused what is the right approach as each one gives a different result for test of interaction hypothesis that gender * post_metoo is significant.

Also, if we are interested in seeing how the trajectories of masculine language use of men and women users change post_metoo (i.e., in the years 2018-23), how should we go about it?

Much appreciated.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

ORIGINAL ANSWER

Without knowing much about this (interesting!) subject, I'm not sure you need the year in the model at all. Perhaps you need it for some other reason, but not to investigate gender differences in the use of masculine language or in gender differences in the pre-post metoo change in the use of masculine language. So, I think the following model would work (I assume "post_metoo" is a two-level categorical variable indicating whether the tweet was posted prior to or after metoo):

mod<-lmer(masculine_lang ~ (1|user_id)+gender*post_metoo)

When it comes to trajectories, I'd suggest using latent (growth) curve models with gender as a time-invariant covariate. See for instance this and this resource.

EDITED IN: I see you do need the year. I suppose you can enter it as a categorical predictor with each year as level. Or if you believe year can be considered as a continuous predictor, you can enter it as numeric too.

$\endgroup$
9
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It may be useful to have year in the model in case there are changes in masculine_lang over time (that are separate from post_metoo). $\endgroup$
    – mkt
    Commented May 30, 2023 at 9:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Of course, if they are interested in those changes - but it wasn't clear to me if that was the case. $\endgroup$
    – Sointu
    Commented May 30, 2023 at 9:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It's important even if they are not interested in those changes. Imagine there is a gradual decrease over time and then a sudden decrease after the event of interest (metoo). If year is not included, then the entire decrease will be attributed to post_metoo. In other words, the parameter estimate for post_metoo (and any associated inference) would be biased unless year is included. $\endgroup$
    – mkt
    Commented May 30, 2023 at 10:14
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Oh, you're right @mkt - I'll edit my response. Sunsan, growth models are specified differently than regression models, you would probably want to enter each year's masculine_lang scores as indicators of the latent intercept and slope, so "year" would be entered that way. $\endgroup$
    – Sointu
    Commented May 30, 2023 at 10:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I have to say I'm not sure what would be the best approach, but I would probably check the relationship between year and masculine_lang visually (with year as continuous), and if it's roughly linear, I'd use year as continuous numeric predictor. If there is curvilinearity in the relationship, I'd also add year squared as predictor. But I hope someone with more insight comments too. $\endgroup$
    – Sointu
    Commented May 30, 2023 at 12:22

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.