Analysis of option impacts on share and advantage of other options in a selection set

One simple but powerful application included in MaceTech Options Analysis is analysis of each option's impacts on the remaining options in a selection set.

The analysis involves a comparison of differences of share, advantage and disadvantage between the full selection set and selection sets minus each option, in turn.

In the following example, the first four lines of data in each table below show the results for basic analysis of share, advantage and disadvantage. The first line in each table is for the full selection set of three options. Each of the next three lines in each table are analyses each excluding one of the three target options. Analysis involves comparison of each of these lines with the full analysis results.

Used here are three appeal measures (using what the US NES calls a "feeling thermometer") for the three main presidential candidates, for the full sample, regardless of whether they voted.

The analysis is based on 1996 US NES data described in the ExampleSample.xls file included in the MaceTech Options Analysis download package. The actual example is included amongst the analyses contained in the ExampleAnalysis.xls file also included in the download package. In addition to the output example is an Excel version of the analysis where you will be able to see the cell formulas used for calculating the comparative results.

Impacts of options on shares


	SHARE
	Clinton	Dole	Perot	Totals
Shares	58%	32%	10%	100%
Shares for reduced selection sets
Clinton excluded		66%	33%	99%
Dole excluded	72%		27%	100%
Perot excluded	63%	37%		100%
Impact of option in share points
Clinton's impacts		-35%	-23%	-57%
Dole's impacts	-14%		-18%	-32%
Perot's impacts	-5%	-5%		-10%
Sources of option share
Clinton's sources		60%	40%	100%
Dole's sources	45%		55%	100%
Perot's sources	51%	49%		100%


Impacts of options on advantage

	ADVANTAGE
	Clinton	Dole	Perot
	17.5	9.4	1.6
Advantage for reduced selection sets
Clinton excluded		19.1	6.8
Dole excluded	27.0		7.5
Perot excluded	22.6	15.2
Points change in advantage
Clinton's impacts		-9.7	-5.2
Dole's impacts	-9.5		-5.9
Perot's impacts	-5.1	-5.8
Percent change in advantage
Clinton's impacts		-51%	-77%
Dole's impacts	-35%		-79%
Perot's impacts	-22%	-38%


Impacts of options on disadvantage

	DISADVANTAGE
	Clinton	Dole	Perot
	-16.6	-24.1	-36.3
Disadvantage for reduced selection sets
Clinton excluded		-6.8	-19.1
Dole excluded	-7.5		-27.0
Perot excluded	-15.2	-22.6
Points change in disadvantage
Clinton's impacts		-17.2	-17.2
Dole's impacts	-9.1		-9.3
Perot's impacts	-1.4	-1.5
Percent change in disadvantage
Clinton's impacts		252%	90%
Dole's impacts	122%		34%
Perot's impacts	10%	6%

DATA SOURCE STUDY CITATION:

Rosenstone, Steven J., Donald R. Kinder, Warren E. Miller, and the National
Election Studies. NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES, 1996: PRE- AND POST-
ELECTION STUDY [dataset]. 3rd release. Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan, Center for Political Studies [producer and distributor], 1998.

These materials are based on work supported by the National Science
Foundation under Grant Nos. : SBR-9707741, SBR-9317631, SES-9209410,
SES-9009379, SES-8808361, SES-8341310, SES-8207580, and SOC77-885.

Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in
these materials are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect
those of the National Science Foundation.

Full details to be found at: http://www.umich.edu/~nes

KnowledgeBase index

Site map

Homepage