Brandeis University
Maurice and Marilyn Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies
Discovering Israel At War
The Impact of Taglit-Birthright Israel in Summer 2014
Technical Appendices
Michelle Shain
Leonard Saxe
Shahar Hecht
Graham Wright
Theodore Sasson
February 2015
Table of Contents Appendix A: Methodology .................................................................................................................. 2 Pre-­‐trip Survey ........................................................................................................................................................... 3 Post-­‐trip Survey ......................................................................................................................................................... 4 Weighting ................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Appendix B: Figures and Tables ...................................................................................................... 4 The Applicant Pool ................................................................................................................................................... 7 The Trip ...................................................................................................................................................................... 10 The Impact of the Trip ......................................................................................................................................... 12 2 Table of Figures Figure B1. Jewish background and experiences of U.S. Taglit applicants v. all U.S. Jews ages 18-­‐26 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Figure B2. Jewish background and experiences of Taglit applicants by prior Israel experience .................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Figure B3: Categorized Open-­‐ended responses to “In brief, how did your Taglit-­‐Birthright Israel trip affect you compared to your previous trip(s) to Israel?” for Newly eligible and Always eligible Taglit participants ................................................................................................................. 12 Figure B4. Coded open-­‐ended responses for random 25% sample of respondents on “How did your experience on Taglit-­‐Birthright Israel affect your feelings about the conflict between Israel and Hamas?” ............................................................................................................................. 19 Figure B5: Coded open-­‐ended responses to ““Do you have anything to add about your feelings with respect to the conflict between Israel and Hamas?” ................................................... 20 Table of Tables Table A1. Pre Survey Final Disposition and Response Rate ................................................................... 4 Table A2: Post Survey Final Disposition and Response Rate ................................................................. 5 Table B1. Logistic regression of Taglit participation ................................................................................. 8 Table B2. Multinomial logistic regression of prior Israel experience ............................................. 10 Table B3. Logistic regression of extending trip ........................................................................................ 11 Table B4. Random effects Ordered Logistic regression on perceptions of Israel ...................... 13 Table B5. Random effects binary logistic regression on views of Israel (1) ................................ 13 Table B6. Random effects binary logistic regression on views of Israel (2) ................................ 14 Table B7: Multinomial logistic regression on "who do you think was most responsible for the conflict in Gaza?" ............................................................................................................................................ 15 Table B8. Multinomial logistic regression on “Do you think the Israeli actions in the recent conflict with Hamas was…?” .............................................................................................................................. 16 Table B9. Multinomial logistic regression on "What do you think about how Israel responded in the recent conflict in Gaza?” .................................................................................................. 17 Table B10. Binary logistic regression on support / estrangement for/from Israel .................. 18 Table B11. Random effects ordered logistic regression on Connection to Israel with interaction term between time and political views (Answer categories: very much, somewhat, a little/not at all) ............................................................................................................................ 21 Table B12. Random effects ordered logistic regression on Connection to Jewish life (1) (answer categories: very much, somewhat, a little/not at all) .......................................................... 21 Table B13. Random effects ordered logistic regression on Connection to Jewish life (2) (answer categories: very much, somewhat, a little/not at all) .......................................................... 23 3 Appendix A: Methodology This appendix describes the methodology and data collection procedures of underlying the results of Discovering Israel at War: The Impact of Taglit-­‐Birthright Israel in Summer 2014. This study focuses on all 40,619 individuals who completed eligible applications for summer 2014 (round 30) Taglit trips from the United States and Canada. Of this group, 21,514 applicants ended up participating in a trip, and 19,105 did not. The study was conducted as a “failed census,” meaning that attempts were made to contact all known members of the population, rather than just a random sample of the population. The study was comprised of both a “pre-­‐trip” and a “post-­‐trip” survey. The pre survey was conducted in the spring 2014, and the post survey was conducted in August 2014. Both surveys were conducted online, using web instruments created in Lime Survey.1 Email invitations and reminders were sent to individuals using email address information collected in the Taglit registration process. For both surveys, all respondents were offered a chance to win one of two $100 Amazon.com gift certificates. Pre-­‐trip Survey The initial email invitation for the pre-­‐trip survey was sent to 37,517 eligible applicants on April 3, 2014. Three separate reminders were sent to this group on April 8th, April 14th and April 24th. On April 23rd email invitations were sent to an additional 2,876 individuals whose applications had not been processed at the time the initial invitations were sent. This second group was sent a reminder on April 28th. The survey was closed on May 1, 2014. The remaining 226 eligible members of the frame were not sent pre surveys because their applications were not complete until pre-­‐trip survey data collection ended. Table A1 shows final dispositions and AAPOR response rates for the entire population, as well as separately for summer 2014 Participants and Nonparticipants, although it should be noted that at the time of the pre-­‐trip survey no trips had actually left. The 226 individuals who were not surveyed are considered non-­‐contacts in the table below. 1
Cohen Center staff made some modifications to the source code of Lime Survey before using it for this study (LimeSurvey is open-­‐source software released under the terms of the GNU General Public License v. 2). These modifications were mainly to allow greater compatibility between Lime Survey and the in-­‐house CATI and bulk-­‐
email sending systems. 4 Table A1. Pre Survey Final Disposition and Response Rate Complete interview Partial interview Break-­‐off Refusal Non-­‐contact Total frame AAPOR Response Rate 4 Pre-­‐Trip Survey Pre-­‐Trip Survey Pre-­‐Trip Survey (All) (Nonparticipants) (Participants) 4,322 22.62% 8,385 38.97% 12,707 31.28% 85 0.44% 156 0.73% 241 0.59% 232 1.21% 333 1.55% 565 1.39% 502 2.63% 530 2.46% 1,032 2.54% 13,964 73.09% 12,110 56.29% 26,074 64.19% 19,105 100.00% 21,514 100.00% 40,619 100.00% 23.07% 39.70% 31.88% Post-­‐trip Survey As with the pre-­‐trip survey, all eligible population members were sent online invitations to take the post survey.2 Initial email invitations were sent to all population members on August 18, 2014. Email reminders were sent on August 21st and August 27th. In addition, some special subpopulations were selected to receive phone calls, in which they were encouraged to complete the survey online. The first of these subsamples was a random sample of 2,000 members of the population. In addition, because of acute interest in the small number of seven-­‐day (as opposed to ten-­‐day) Taglit trips, all 142 individuals who were initially assigned to such trips were also chosen to receive phone calls. Seven of the individuals who went on seven day trips were also in the random calling sample, so in total 2,134 individuals were selected to receive calls, with the remaining members of the population receiving only email invitations and reminders. Calling was conducted by experienced callers, most of them Brandeis university students. Callers received special training on interacting with respondents and using the Cohen Center’s survey management system. All individuals in this subsample were called once and were encouraged by callers to complete the survey. Callers left voice messages if they could not reach individuals directly. All individuals were sent an email with a link to the survey following the phone call. Calling operations were begun on September 2nd and concluded on September 10th. After calling operations were completed, a final email reminder was sent to all population members on September 15th, and the survey was closed on September 18th. Some individuals (90) participated but were sent home mid-­‐trip. For the purposes of the post survey, these individuals were considered nonrespondents. They did not receive the full treatment and should not be considered participants since their answers would have been corrupted by their partial experience. 2
Some members were initially counted as part of the population but later found to have been ineligible for the survey or the trip. Reasons for ineligibility included: being ineligible for the program but not caught until late in the process, being developmentally disabled and unable to complete the survey, and not residing in either the United States or Canada. 5 Table A2: Post Survey Final Disposition and Response Rate Complete interview Partial interview Break-­‐off Refusal Non-­‐contact Ineligible Total frame AAPOR Response Rate 4 Post-­‐Trip Survey Post-­‐Trip Survey Post-­‐Trip Survey (All) (Nonparticipants) (Participants) 1,590 8.32% 4,154 19.31% 5,744 14.14% 210 1.10% 361 1.68% 571 1.41% 140 0.73% 428 1.99% 568 1.40% 1,285 6.73% 1,355 6.30% 2,640 6.50% 15,790 82.65% 15,216 70.73% 31,006 76.33% 90 0.47% 0 0.00% 90 0.22% 19,105 100.00% 21,514 100.00% 40,619 100.00% 9.47% 20.99% 15.58% Weighting Because both surveys were sent to all members of the population, no design weights were needed to account for unequal probabilities of selection. However, due to unit nonresponse, there were a number of significant differences between the characteristics of survey respondents and the characteristics of the full population. This could be determined empirically because a significant amount of demographic data is available in the Taglit registration system for the entire population, including survey nonrespondents. Consequently, weights were calculated to account for this nonresponse bias, as well as additional bias in the post-­‐trip survey which might have resulted from expending greater effort in attempting to contact individuals assigned to seven-­‐day trips. Because the additional individuals who were called were a random sample of the population, no weights were needed to account for these individuals’ higher probability of selection. Three sets of weights were calculated, for respondents to the pre-­‐trip survey, respondents to the post-­‐trip survey and those who responded to both the pre-­‐ and the post-­‐trip survey. In each case the respondents in question were weighted so that their demographic characteristics matched those of the full population. This weighting procedure (often known as “raking”) iteratively adjusts on each specified variable in turn, until the difference between the weighted estimate and target value for each variable is below a minimum specified level. Weights for this study were computed in Stata using the user written “survwgt” command. For each set of weights, a logistic regression model was run, which attempted to predict survey response (i.e. either pre-­‐trip survey response, post-­‐trip survey response, or response to both pre-­‐ and post-­‐trip surveys) as a function of a number of demographic variables which were known for the entire population. Variables investigated included: age, gender, parental inmarriage, student status, Jewish denomination, previous Israel experience, having applied to Taglit multiple times, participation, and being on a seven-­‐day vs. ten-­‐day trip. After examining these variables, the final weighting was calculated using the following variables: age, gender, parental inmarriage, student status, previous Israel experience, having applied to Taglit multiple times, participation, and being on a seven-­‐day vs. ten-­‐day trip. For weighting purposes, age was recoded to be a binary variable based on the respondent being 22 years old or older. 6 Analysis Analyses were conducted using Stata 13.1 and the “svy” suite of commands for weighted data. Data were variously drawn from the Taglit registration system, the pre-­‐trip survey and the post-­‐trip survey, and appropriate weights were applied to each analysis based on the source or sources of the data. Throughout the report, only descriptive statistics—usually two-­‐way tables of frequencies—are presented. However, the substantive relationships between variables presented in this report have been confirmed by a number of more sophisticated analytic paradigms, including regression analysis and multi-­‐level modeling to account for repeated observations of the same individual over time. The results of all these additional analyses can be found in Technical Appendix B. 7 Appendix B: Figures and Tables This appendix contains the additional figures and tables referred to in the “Notes” section of the report Discovering Israel at War: The Impact of Taglit-­‐Birthright Israel in Summer 2014. Like the report, Appendix B is divided into three sections: “The Applicant Pool,” “The Trip,” and “The Impact of the Trip.” The Applicant Pool Figure B1. Jewish background and experiences of U.S. Taglit applicants v. all U.S. Jews ages 18-­‐26 100% U.S. Taglit applicants All U.S. Jews ages 18-­‐26 80% 60% 40% 70% 51% 45% 20% 23% 27% 39% 35% 27% 5% 0% Two Jewish parents Jewish day school Jewish camp 11% Orthodox Been to Israel Note: Data on all U.S. Jews ages 18-­‐26 were taken from the Pew Research Center’s 2013 Survey of U.S. Jews (authors’ calculations). 8 Table B3. Logistic regression of Taglit participation Odds Ratio (Std. Err.) Canadian 0.75 (0.03) *** First-­‐time applicant 0.81 (0.02) *** Parental marriage type1 Conversionary inmarriage 1.08 (0.04) * Intermarriage 1.02 (0.03) Other 0.83 (0.1) Most intense form of formal Jewish ed.2 None 0.76 (0.02) *** Day school 0.86 (0.02) *** Raised Orthodox 0.49 (0.02) *** Prior Israel experience3 None 1.07 (0.03) * Newly eligible, prior Israel experience 0.6 (0.02) *** * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001 1
Omitted cat.: Inmarriage 2
Omitted cat.: Supplementary school 3
Omitted cat.: Always eligible, prior Israel experience Figure B2. Jewish background and experiences of Taglit applicants by prior Israel experience 9 100% No Israel experience Always elig., prior Israel experience Newly elig., prior Israel experience 80% 60% 91% 92% 40% 62% 47% 20% 48% 15% 0% Two Jewish parents Source: Taglit registration system Jewish day school 4% 13% 8% Raised Orthodox 10 Table B4. Multinomial logistic regression of prior Israel experience Coef. (Std. Err.) Coef. (Std. Err.) NoneA Newly eligible, prior Israel experienceA Canadian -­‐0.8 (0.05) *** -­‐0.67 (0.06) *** First-­‐time applicant -­‐0.08 (0.03) * 2.28 (0.08) *** Parental marriage type1 Conversionary inmarriage 0.61 (0.05) *** 0.18 (0.07) ** Intermarriage 1.55 (0.05) *** 0.17 (0.07) * Other 1.1 (0.22) *** 0.15 (0.34) Most intense form of formal Jewish ed.2 None 0.03 (0.04) -­‐1.87 (0.1) *** Day school -­‐1.12 (0.03) *** -­‐0.01 (0.04) Raised Orthodox -­‐0.28 (0.05) *** -­‐0.7 (0.07) *** A
Base outcome: Always eligible, prior Israel experience * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001 1
Omitted cat.: Inmarriage 2
Omitted cat.: Supplementary school 3
Omitted cat.: Always eligible, prior Israel experience The Trip 11 Table B5. Logistic regression of extending trip Odds Ratio (Std. Err.) Canadian 3.86 (0.43)*** First-­‐time applicant 0.80 (.064)** Parental marriage type1 Conversionary inmarriage 0.80 (0.10) Intermarriage 0.79 (0.06)** Other 0.81 (0.28) Most intense form of formal Jewish ed.2 None 1.40 (0.12) *** Day school 1.36 (0.11) ** Prior Israel experience3 None 0.43 (0.03)*** Newly eligible, prior Israel experience 1.01 (0.13) In Israel during Operation Protective Edge 0.81 (0.05) ** * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001 1
Omitted cat.: Inmarriage 2
Omitted cat.: Supplementary school 3
Omitted cat.: Always eligible, prior Israel experience 12 Figure B3: Categorized Open-­‐ended responses to “In brief, how did your Taglit-­‐Birthright Israel trip affect you compared to your previous trip(s) to Israel?” for Newly eligible and Always eligible Taglit participants 21% 27% Learned / saw more * Made friends / group conneccon * Increased / renewed conneccon Appreciated more due to age / maturity *** 13% 19% 11% 14% 20% 11% Beder / Great in general way 9% 10% Made friends with / understood Israelis 8% 10% Worse, undefined or idiosyncracc way *** 8% 3% Newly elig. More Judaism 2% 3% Always elig. Same effect / No effect * 5% 3% Shorter, rushed *** 8% 2% Less Judaism ** 4% 1% Learned less *** 5% 0% Other 6% 6% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001 Note: Response categories are not mutually exclusive. The Impact of the Trip Note: Tables B4, B5, and B6 report the results of random effects models run on a reshaped “long” version of the dataset, with separate observations for pre and post measurements for each respondent. Consequently, time point (pre and post) are “nested” within respondents, necessitating the use of multilevel modeling methods, such as random effects modeling. 13 Table B6. Random effects Ordered Logistic regression on perceptions of Israel Connection to Israel (Not at all / A little, Somewhat, Very Much) Confidence in Explaining Situation in Israel (Not at all / A little, Somewhat, Very) Checking News about Israel (Never/Once, Once a week/Every few days, Once a day or more) Odds ratio -­‐ Participant 4.81 (0.60)*** 3.31 (0.36)*** 1.76 (0.16)*** Odds ratio -­‐ Time (pre/post trip) 2.47 (0.25)*** 12.13 (1.36)*** 33.11 (3.73) *** Cutpoint 1 0.14 (0.13) 4.54 (0.17) 0.14 (0.13) Cutpoint 2 3.05 (0.15) 7.55 (0.22) 3.05 (0.15) Cluster (Individual) level standard deviation 7.80 (0.50) 5.27 (0.40) 7.80 (0.50) 763.01*** 522.11*** Likelihood-­‐ratio test vs single level ologit 1360.77*** * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001 Table B7. Random effects binary logistic regression on views of Israel (1) Israel is a world center of high tech innovation (strongly agree) Israel is part of God's plan for the Jewish people (strongly agree) Israel is under constant threat from hostile neighbors who seek its destruction (strongly agree) Odds ratio -­‐ Participant 1.78 (0.26)*** 1.24 (0.20) 1.86 (0.26)*** Odds ratio -­‐ Time (pre/post trip) 3.13 (0.41)*** 1.08 (0.15) 2.34 (0.29)*** Constant 0.63 (0.10)** 0.31 (0.57)*** 1.03 (0.15) Interclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) Likelihood-­‐ratio test of ICC=0 * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001 0.61 533.65*** 0.79 1243.42*** 0.57 444.51*** 14 Table B8. Random effects binary logistic regression on views of Israel (2) Israel is guilty of violating the human rights of the Palestinian people (strongly agree) Israel was established as a refuge for persecuted Jews (strongly agree) Israel upholds the social and political equality of all its citizens (strongly agree) Odds ratio -­‐ Participant 0.78 (0.14) 1.59 (0.18)*** 1.70 (0.21)*** Odds ratio -­‐ Time (pre/post trip) 2.14 (0.35)*** 1.57 (0.16)*** 1.13 (0.13) Constant 0.01 (0.00)*** 0.86 (0.11) 0.85 (0.12) Interclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) Likelihood-­‐ratio test of ICC=0 512.95*** * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001 0.7 0.45 344.56*** 0.61 673.79*** 15 Table B9: Multinomial logistic regression on "who do you think was most responsible for the conflict in Gaza?" Coef. (Std. Err.) Coef. (Std. Err.) Coef. (Std. Err.) IsraelA BothA Don't KnowA Participant -­‐0.86 (0.17)*** -­‐0.38 (0.08)*** -­‐0.60 (0.89)*** Canadian -­‐0.33 (0.33) -­‐0.07 (0.13) 0.09 (0.15) First-­‐time applicant 0.12 (0.20) -­‐0.12 (0.08) 0.15 (0.11) Parental marriage type1 Conversionary inmarriage 0.23 (0.33) 0.35 (0.12)** 0.29 (0.14)* Intermarriage 0.86 (0.21)*** 0.41 (0.09)*** 0.31 (0.11)** Other -­‐0.45 (1.06) 0.23 (0.42) 0.32 (0.48) Most intense form of formal Jewish ed.2 None 0.17 (0.21) 0.12 (0.09) 0.15 (0.11) Day school -­‐0.19 (0.27) -­‐0.40 (0.11)*** -­‐0.21 (0.13) Raised Orthodox -­‐0.84 (0.54) -­‐0.13 (0.26)*** -­‐0.50 (0.24)* Prior Israel experience3 None 0.59 (0.27)* 0.28 (0.11)* 0.67 (0.14)*** Newly eligible, prior Israel experience -­‐0.30 (0.41) 0.19 (0.14) -­‐0.07 (0.20) A
Base outcome: Hamas * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001 1
Omitted cat.: Inmarriage 2
Omitted cat.: Supplementary school 3
Omitted cat.: Always eligible, prior Israel experience 16 Table B10. Multinomial logistic regression on “Do you think the Israeli actions in the recent conflict with Hamas was…?” Coef. (Std. Err.) Coef. (Std. Err.) Coef. (Std. Err.) Completely JustifiedA Mostly UnjustifiedA Completely UnjustifiedA Participant 0.06 (0.07) -­‐0.79 (0.09)*** -­‐1.11 (0.18)*** Canadian -­‐0.11 (0.11) -­‐0.35 (0.18) -­‐0.08 (0.37) First-­‐time applicant 0.08 (0.76) -­‐0.15 (0.11) -­‐0.13 (0.24) Parental marriage type1 Conversionary inmarriage -­‐0.51 (0.11)*** -­‐0.03 (0.16) -­‐0.38 (0.43) Intermarriage -­‐0.61 (0.09)*** 0.37 (0.11)** 0.44 (0.23) Other -­‐0.36 (0.35) -­‐0.58 (0.64) 0.46 (0.78) Most intense form of formal Jewish ed.2 None 0.08 (0.09) 0.21 (0.11) 0.15 (0.23) Day school 0.38 (0.09)*** -­‐0.29 (0.16) 0.18 (0.34) Raised Orthodox 1.00 (0.15)*** -­‐1.46 (0.49)** 0.62 (0.49) Prior Israel experience3 None -­‐0.34 (0.09)*** 0.06 (0.15) 0.84 (0.40)* Newly eligible, prior Israel experience -­‐0.43 (0.11)*** -­‐0.96 (0.18)*** -­‐0.32 (0.53) A
Base outcome: Mostly Justified * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001 1
Omitted cat.: Inmarriage 2
Omitted cat.: Supplementary school 3
Omitted cat.: Always eligible, prior Israel experience 17 Table B11. Multinomial logistic regression on "What do you think about how Israel responded in the recent conflict in Gaza?” Coef. (Std. Err.) Coef. (Std. Err.) Israel went too farA Israel did not go far Don't KnowA enoughA Participant -­‐0.67 (0.08)*** -­‐0.20 (0.09)* -­‐0.40 (0.08)*** Canadian -­‐0.11 (0.15) 0.08 (0.14) 0.24 (0.12) First-­‐time applicant 0.09 (0.09) 0.04 (0.11) 0.01 (0.09) Parental marriage type1 Conversionary inmarriage 0.25 (0.13) -­‐0.48 (0.16)** -­‐0.05 (0.12) Intermarriage 0.61 (0.10)*** -­‐0.57 (0.14)*** 0.22 (0.09)* Other -­‐0.14 (.50) -­‐0.71 (0.50) -­‐0.30 (0.44) Most intense form of formal Jewish ed.2 None 0.23 (0.10)* 0.56 (0.14)*** 0.13 (0.10) Day school -­‐0.26 (0.13)* 0.60 (0.12)*** -­‐0.30 (0.11)** Raised Orthodox -­‐2.02 (0.43)*** 0.88 (0.15)*** -­‐0.16 (0.20) Prior Israel experience3 None 0.39 (0.13) -­‐0.34 (0.11)** 0.40 (0.11)*** Newly eligible, prior Israel experience -­‐0.01 (0.17) -­‐0.11 (0.15)** 0.18 (0.14) A
Base outcome: Israel’s response was about right * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001 1
Omitted cat.: Inmarriage 2
Omitted cat.: Supplementary school 3
Omitted cat.: Always eligible, prior Israel experience Coef. (Std. Err.) 18 Table B12. Binary logistic regression on support / estrangement for/from Israel Support Israel Very Much Estranged from Israel Very Much Odds ratio (standard error) Odds ratio (standard error) Participant 1.74 (0.11)*** 0.51 (0.31)*** Canadian 1.05 (0.12) 0.86 (0.09) 1.06 (0.08) 0.98 (0.07) Parental marriage type Conversionary inmarriage 0.63 (0.06)*** 1.28 (0.13)* Intermarriage 0.54 (0.04)*** 1.60 (0.13)*** Other 1.10 (0.41) 1.09 (0.38) Most intense form of formal 2
Jewish ed. None 0.90 (0.07) 0.88 (0.07) Day school 1.58 (0.15)*** 0.75 (0.63)** 2.83 (0.58)*** 0.56 (0.85)*** Prior Israel experience None 0.62 (0.06)*** 1.33 (0.12)** Newly eligible, prior Israel experience 0.83 (0.10) 1.03 (0.11) First-­‐time applicant 1
Raised Orthodox 3
* p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001 1
Omitted cat.: Inmarriage 2
Omitted cat.: Supplementary school 3
Omitted cat.: Always eligible, prior Israel experience 19 Figure B4. Coded open-­‐ended responses for random 25% sample of respondents on “How did your experience on Taglit-­‐Birthright Israel affect your feelings about the conflict between Israel and Hamas?”
Increased support for Israel 37% Increased understanding 37% Connected w/Israelis 14% Increased interest in Israel 13% No effect 9% Changed view of media 5% Decreased support for Israel 2% Other impact 8% Unintelligible or unrelated 5% 0% Note: Response categories are not mutually exclusive. 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 20 Figure B5: Coded open-­‐ended responses to ““Do you have anything to add about your feelings with respect to the conflict between Israel and Hamas?”
Unqualified support 30% Shared blame / Complex situacon 20% Sad / want peace 12% Media parcsan / unreliable 7% Feel uninformed / confused 5% Pessimism on resolucon 4% Unqualified criccism 4% Rising anc-­‐Semicsm 3% Other 9% Unintelligible 15% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Note: Response categories are not mutually exclusive. Note: Tables B11, B12, B13, and B14 report the results of random effects models run on a reshaped “long” version of the dataset, with separate observations for pre and post measurements for each respondent. Consequently, time point (pre and post) are “nested” within respondents, necessitating the use of multilevel modeling methods, such as random effects modeling. 21 Table B13. Random effects ordered logistic regression on Connection to Israel with interaction term between time and political views (Answer categories: very much, somewhat, a little/not at all) Connection to Israel Odds ratio -­‐ Participant 1.86 (0.19)*** Odds ratio -­‐ Time (pre/post trip) 30.54 (4.04)*** Political views1 Odds ratio -­‐ Liberal 0.57 (0.06)*** Odds ratio -­‐ Conservative 2.71 (0.40)*** Interaction between time and political views Odds ratio -­‐ Post trip * Liberal 1.30 (0.15)* Odds ratio -­‐ Post trip * Conservative 0.61 (0.1)** Cutpoint 1 0.50 (0.08) Cutpoint 2 4.41 (0.12) Cluster (Individual) level standard deviation Likelihood-­‐ratio test vs single-­‐level ologit 2.96 488.87*** 1
Omitted cat.: Moderate / Slightly Liberal * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001 Table B14. Random effects ordered logistic regression on Connection to Jewish life (1) (answer categories: very much, somewhat, a little/not at all) Connection to Worldwide Jewish community Connection to local Jewish community Connection to Jewish customs and traditions Odds ratio -­‐ Participant 1.94 (0.22)*** 0.811 (0.10) 0.93 (0.11) Odds ratio -­‐ Time (pre/post trip) 2.61 (0.27)*** 1.55 (0.16)*** 1.60 (0.17)*** Cutpoint 1 -­‐0.34 (0.13) 0.35 (0.13) -­‐1.45 (0.13) Cutpoint 2 2.54 (0.13) 2.77 (0.14) 1.78 (0.13) Cluster (Individual) level standard 6 7.93 7.27 22 deviation Likelihood-­‐ratio test vs single-­‐level ologit * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001 1188.15*** 1485.89*** 1463.40*** 23 Table B15. Random effects ordered logistic regression on Connection to Jewish life (2) (answer categories: very much, somewhat, a little/not at all) Odds Ratio Connection to Jewish Connection to peers Jewish history Odds ratio -­‐ Participant 1.09 (0.12) 1.56 (0.17)*** Odds ratio -­‐ Time (pre/post trip) 1.78 (0.18)*** 1.43 (0.14)*** Cutpoint 1 -­‐1.18 (0.13) -­‐1.75 (0.13) Cutpoint 2 1.82 (0.13) 1.36 (0.13) Cluster (Individual) level standard deviation Likelihood-­‐ratio test vs single-­‐level ologit * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001 6.4 1303.84*** 5.54 1144.39*** The Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies at Brandeis University is a multi-disciplinary
research institute dedicated to the study of American Jewry and issues related to contemporary
Jewish life.
The Steinhardt Social Research Institute (SSRI), hosted at CMJS, uses innovative research
methods to collect and analyze socio-demographic data on the Jewish community.
Brandeis University