Table 2.
Moderators of the Effect of Cognitive Ability on Economic Ideology.
| Moderator | k | N | r | 95% CI | 95% PI | Homogeneity tests | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q between | Q within | I 2 | ||||||
| Overall effect | 20 | 46,426 | .07** | [0.02, 0.12] | [−0.16, 0.29] | 551.43*** | 96.2% | |
| Measures of cognitive ability | 1.80 | |||||||
| General | 12 | 26,877 | .08* | [0.002, 0.15] | [−0.21, 0.34] | 354.04*** | 96.6% | |
| Verbal | 5 | 17,703 | .09* | [0.01, 0.17] | [−0.23, 0.39] | 125.73*** | 96.7% | |
| Numerical | 3 | 1,846 | −.001 | [−0.11, 0.11] | [−0.87, 0.86] | 11.76** | 80.7% | |
| Measure of economic ideology | 14.34** | |||||||
| Symbolic | 4 | 2,351 | −.01 | [−0.10, 0.07] | [−0.36, 0.34] | 14.02** | 74.9% | |
| Operational | 14 | 43,536 | .11*** | [0.05, 0.16] | [−0.12, 0.32] | 484.39*** | 96.6% | |
| Mixed | 2 | 539 | −.07 | [−0.16, 0.01] | — | 0.82 | 0.00% | |
| Number of items | 0.66 | |||||||
| 1 | 8 | 14,883 | .04 | [−0.04, 0.13] | [−0.26, 0.34] | 165.46*** | 95.8% | |
| 2–10 | 8 | 20,797 | .09 | [−0.003, 0.18] | [−0.24, 0.39] | 136.05*** | 97.0% | |
| >10 | 4 | 10,746 | .08** | [0.02, 0.13] | [−0.17, 0.32] | 23.12*** | 85.1% | |
| Sampling methodology | 11.89** | |||||||
| Non-probability | 10 | 9,861 | −.002 | [−0.05, 0.04] | [−0.13, 0.13] | 27.28** | 68.6% | |
| Probability | 10 | 36,565 | .13*** | [0.07,0.20] | [−0.11, 0.37] | 339.56*** | 97.3% | |
| Location | 7.34** | |||||||
| USA | 12 | 25,917 | .02 | [−0.04, 0.08] | [−0.19, 0.23] | 198.95*** | 94.3% | |
| Scandinavia/UK/Turkey | 7 | 20,509 | .14*** | [0.07, 0.21] | [−0.10, 0.37] | 90.48*** | 94.6% | |
Note. Positive effect sizes indicate that higher levels of cognitive ability are associated with a more conservative economic ideology. k = number of independent samples, CI = confidence interval, PI = prediction interval.
*
p ≤ .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.