Multilevel multiple imputation: A review and evaluation of joint modeling and chained equations imputation.

Although missing data methods have advanced in recent years, methodologists have devoted less attention to multilevel data structures where observations at level-1 are nested within higher-order organizational units at level-2 (e.g., individuals within neighborhoods; repeated measures nested within individuals; students nested within classrooms). Joint modeling and chained equations imputation are the principal imputation frameworks for single-level data, and both have multilevel counterparts. These approaches differ algorithmically and in their functionality; both are appropriate for simple random intercept analyses with normally distributed data, but they differ beyond that. The purpose of this paper is to describe multilevel imputation strategies and evaluate their performance in a variety of common analysis models. Using multiple imputation theory and computer simulations, we derive 4 major conclusions: (a) joint modeling and chained equations imputation are appropriate for random intercept analyses; (b) the joint model is superior for analyses that posit different within- and between-cluster associations (e.g., a multilevel regression model that includes a level-1 predictor and its cluster means, a multilevel structural equation model with different path values at level-1 and level-2); (c) chained equations imputation provides a dramatic improvement over joint modeling in random slope analyses; and (d) a latent variable formulation for categorical variables is quite effective. We use a real data analysis to demonstrate multilevel imputation, and we suggest a number of avenues for future research. (PsycINFO Database Record

Religion and intergroup conflict: findings from the Global Group Relations Project.

How might religion shape intergroup conflict? We tested whether religious infusion-the extent to which religious rituals and discourse permeate the everyday activities of groups and their members-moderated the effects of two factors known to increase intergroup conflict: competition for limited resources and incompatibility of values held by potentially conflicting groups. We used data from the Global Group Relations Project to investigate 194 groups (e.g., ethnic, religious, national) at 97 sites around the world. When religion was infused in group life, groups were especially prejudiced against those groups that held incompatible values, and they were likely to discriminate against such groups. Moreover, whereas disadvantaged groups with low levels of religious infusion typically avoided directing aggression against their resource-rich and powerful counterparts, disadvantaged groups with high levels of religious infusion directed significant aggression against them-despite the significant tangible costs to the disadvantaged groups potentially posed by enacting such aggression. This research suggests mechanisms through which religion may increase intergroup conflict and introduces an innovative method for performing nuanced, cross-societal research.

Threatened Selves and Differential Prejudice Expression by White and Black Perceivers.

Previous theorizing suggests that often-stigmatized individuals may be just as likely, if not more likely, than infrequently stigmatized individuals to protect self-regard by derogating members of low-status groups after receiving negative feedback from high-status others. Often-stigmatized individuals, however, can discount criticism from these high-status others as reflecting prejudice, thereby making outgroup derogation unnecessary as an esteem-protective strategy. Replicating past research, White participants in Experiment 1 expressed prejudices after receiving negative feedback from a White evaluator; as predicted, however, Black participants did not. In Experiment 2, participants instead received negative feedback from Black evaluators (evaluators more likely to threaten Black participants' self-regard). Here, contrary to previous theorizing, Black participants expressed prejudices, not toward another low-status group, but toward high-status Whites. In all, findings reveal flaws in previous assumptions that frequently stigmatized individuals may be especially prone to devalue lower-status others after rejection or negative feedback from members of higher-status groups.