Topic: Format 1x REPORT using guidelines supplied from University.

1x ready report with about 1375 words should be correctly re-formatted using a University guideline that is provided as TXT file indicating the correct FORMAT:

1. DOUBLE SPACING, 2. FONT SIZE 12, 3. FONT TIMES NEW ROMAN, 4. WRITE IN ACTIVE RATHER THAN PASSIVE, 5. TITLE, 6. ABSTRACT, 7. INTRODUCTION, 8. METHOD, 9. Participants, 10. DESIGN, 11. DESIGN, 12. APARATUS/MATERIALS, 13. PROCEDURE, 14. RESULTS, 15. DISCUSSION, 16. APA REFERENCING, 17. APPENdICES, 18. SUMMARY,

Please read the “TIPS FOR WRITING PRACTICAL REPORTS” which consists of 13 pages to follow the instructions how to successfully conclude this piece of work.

the report is written and ready, however it has a different report style and does not follow the correct format, therefore, it must be correctly re-formatted using the guidelines exactly as specified and required by the University.
Additional Files

Practical Report on Cross Pressure Scores
University of Gloucestershire
S0608037
9th July 2012

Abstract
Studies show that the extent to which people was cross pressured to make their voting decision affecting their political behavior. With that, this topic focuses on an effort of presenting the new technique of estimating cross pressures objected at improving already available methods. This is achieved by making individuals to be specific in what they want during voting, estimating the total cross pressures that people faced and finally can be achieved by estimating the extensive available information in any size of party system, therefore facilitating the study of overtime, cross national and cross pressures effects. In this report I will demonstrate the fact that these estimates vigorous, corresponds with current measures of cross pressure well and that have some relationship with behavior patterns predicted by extant theories (Robert & Collier, 2001

Introduction
Varied empirical findings partially blames disappearance of research on effects of cross pressures on political involvement, the demise of research in this connection is a result of inadequate flexible, effective and readily implementable techniques for measuring the extent to which people are subjected to cross pressures. Initial cross pressures estimation approaches only counted two sources of dichotomous cross pressures every time, which were appropriate during multiparty system but are not consistent with consequent political development methodologies. Currently use of social network techniques have increased but they are limited to availability of specific data from handful elections, and still when the data are available, in can only tap small part of respondent’s real social network not including other signal sources connected to cross pressure (Robert & Collier, 2001).
Therefore, one of the main objectives of the paper is to introduce a new cross pressures measure that is elastic to scale up any political group, incorporate a number of any salient cleavages calculated from readily available information from each election study of both genders (male and female) and to approximately estimate the total probable respondent being cross pressured politically.
In the process, the researcher seek to refresh cross pressure analysis of political behavior effects by offering scholarly tools such as cross pressure score for analysis of causes and effects at a larger extent of cross pressures (Basinger & Howard, 2005).
The process includes a review of the initial voter behavior studies, by utilizing personal demographic profile to evaluate the extent of individual subjection to political pressures reinforcements or conflicts, but by extending specific features radically employed in estimation and finally calculating every individuals’ unique cross pressures estimates.
The research is intended to complement contemporary studies delving in physiological and social processes that underlie subjective perception measures of social networks communication or group signals but instead I will utilize cross pressure scores in estimating cross pressure level overally to which individuals are subjected, for which those other techniques are not well suitable (Basinger & Howard, 2005).
The first step is through the first relationship between partisan preferences and demographic features are estimated using regression analysis. This was meant to measure demographics and preferences correlation but not work as comprehensive preferences model (Basinger & Howard, 2005).
The second is that the next common techniques of estimating social network cross pressure is the calculation of individual’s participants proportion with whom he or she conflicts over party preferences. The variance in cross pressure scores of both the highest and lowest quintiles measures conflicting was over 1%. Several measures of social network pressures seen shows positive correlation with commonly used attitudinal measures existing in cross pressures. Hence cross pressure scores proves to be a capturing phenomenon intended to measure (Basinger & Howard, 2005).
The results of the previous study match up the prediction, for all the participation models the cross pressure scores coefficient were negative and highly significant. The listed margin in the consequent rows offers estimate outcome if all female and male voters were alternatively from lowest to highest at 10th , 50th and 90th in terms cross pressure scores of overall sample population holding all the real values of the variables. Movement from 10th to 90th percentile had an effect of 3.4% reduction at high reported rate turn out, nevertheless stronger relationship were suspected on accuracy of turnout measure.
Donations and advocacy among male and female individuals showed slightly enormous effects from similar manipulation, decreasing percentiles from 6.0% and 4.7% respectively (Basinger & Howard, 2005). Donations rates changes was an increment of 50% , probably a low cross pressured people will donate relative to greater cross pressured people.
Certainly, there was no disparity between the cross pressure scores and participation of the sample sizes of the overall data set. But on the larger extent, it serves as a case promoter for utilization of cross pressure scores. Currently, research of cross pressures weighed down by unrealistic estimates and minimal samples, and these aspects have led to inconsistency of resulting findings. Utilization of cross pressures scores on male or female voters with huge datasets, results to alleviation of these problems enabling researchers to discern more acutely the presence of minimal but critical effects in the middle of countless other involve components (Craig & Martinez, 2005).

Results and Discussion
The objective of this report was to introduce new and unique cross pressure measurement tools for estimating cross pressures amongst individuals based on extensive demographic variables by allowing the data to point out the connection between partisan preferences and these demographic features. Also this method aimed at applying national research and other available data sets enabling the research of cross pressure effects in varied situations.
In submitting new cross pressure measures to an extensive range of analytical examination using varied data sources, it was found out that these measures are vigorous to different specifications.
The results further show that it does not show any increase in cross pressure for male or female expected to highly cross pressured in correlation to present cross pressure measures and it forecasts decreased participation and hypothesized changes in probable mediating variables. These variables illustrate that cross pressure scores are helpful tools in the research of individual male and female political behavior (Craig & Martinez, 2005).

References:
Robert, C. &Collier, D. (2001).Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and
Quantitative Research. American Political Science Review 95(3): 529–546.
Basinger, J. & Howard, L. (2005). Ambivalence, Information, and Electoral Choice.”
American Political Science Review 99(2): 169-84.
Berelson, R., Paul F., & William N. (1954). Voting: A Study of Opinion
Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Campbell, A., Philip E., Warren E., & Donald E. (1960). The American
Voter. New York: Wiley.
Craig, C. & Martinez, M. (2005). Ambivalence and the Structure of Political Opinion.
New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Eveland, P. & Hutchens, H. (2009). Political Discussion Frequency, Network Size, and
‘Heterogeneity’ of Discussion as Predictors of Political Knowledge and Participation.
Journal of Communication 59: 205–224.
Hillygus, D. & Todd G. (2008). The Persuadable Voter: Wedge Issues in Presidential
Campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Horan, M. (1971).Social Positions and Political Cross-Pressures: A Re-examination.
American Sociological Review 36(4): 650-60.
Huckfeldt, R. & Sprague, J. (1995). Citizens, Politics, and Social Communication: Information
and Influence in an Election Campaign. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Huckfeldt, R., Morehouse, M. & Osborn, T. (2004). “Disagreement, Ambivalence, and
Engagement: The Political Consequences of Heterogeneous Networks.”Political
Psychology 25(1): 65–95.
Huckfeldt, R. Ken’ichi, I. & Franz P. (2005). Patterns of Disagreement in Democratic Politics:
Comparing Germany, Japan, and the United States. American Journal of
Political Science 49(3): 497–514.
Huckfeldt, R. (2007). Unanimity, Discord, and the Communication of Public Opinion. American
Journal of Political Science 51(4): 978–995.
Jang, S. (2009). Are Diverse Political Networks Always Bad for Participatory Democracy?
Indifference, Alienation, and Political Disagreements. American Politics Research. 37(5):
879–899.
Knoke, D. (1990). Political Networks: The Structuralist Perspective. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
La Due Lake, R. & Huckfeldt, R. (1998). Social Capital, Social Networks, and Political
Participation. Political Psychology 19(3): 567–584.
Lavine, H. (2001). The Electoral Consequences of Ambivalence toward Presidential
Candidates. American Journal of Political Science 45(4): 915-29.
Lazarsfeld, F., Hazel G. & Berelson, B. (1944). The People’s Choice: How the Voter Makes Up
His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York: Duell Sloan and Pearce.
Leighley, E. (1990). Social Interaction and Contextual Influences on Political Participation.
American Politics Research 18: 459–475.
McClurg, D. (2006a). The Electoral Relevance of Political Talk: Examining Disagreement and
Expertise Effects in Social Networks on Political Participation. American Journal of
Political Science 50(3): 737–54.
McClurg, D. (2006b). “Political Disagreement in Context: The Conditional Effect of
Neighborhood Context, Disagreement, and Political Talk on Electoral Participation.”
Political Behavior 28: 349–366.
Mutz, C. (1998). Impersonal Influence: How Perceptions of Mass Collectives Affect Political
Attitudes. New York: Cambridge University Press

Appendices
Reliability Analysis Data

1 18 Female 0 0 0 0 0 5
2 19 Female 2 2 1 2 1 13
3 20 Female 1 0 1 0 0 7
4 21 Female 2 1 2 3 0 13
5 23 Male 0 0 0 1 0 6
6 25 Female 2 2 3 2 0 14
7 18 Male 0 0 0 1 1 7
8 19 Male 2 2 2 2 0 13
9 19 Female 1 0 0 0 2 8
10 20 Male 2 2 2 2 0 13
11 21 Female 1 0 0 0 1 7
12 20 Male 3 1 1 1 0 11
13 21 Female 0 0 0 0 0 6
14 20 Female 3 2 2 2 0 15
15 21 Female 0 0 0 0 0 6
16 20 Male 3 3 3 3 0 17
17 20 Female 1 0 0 1 0 8
18 20 Female 2 2 2 2 1 16
19 19 Male 1 0 0 1 0 6
20 20 Female 3 2 2 2 0 14
21 18 Female 0 0 0 0 0 5
22 19 Female 2 2 1 2 1 12
23 20 Female 1 0 1 0 0 10
24 21 Female 2 1 2 3 0 16
25 23 Male 0 0 0 1 0 9
26 25 Female 2 2 3 2 0 14
27 18 Male 0 0 0 1 1 8
28 19 Male 2 2 2 2 0 12
29 19 Female 1 0 0 0 2 9
30 20 Male 2 2 2 2 0 14
31 21 Female 1 0 0 0 1 8
32 20 Male 3 1 1 1 0 11
33 21 Female 0 0 0 0 0 5
34 20 Female 3 2 2 2 0 14
35 21 Female 0 0 0 0 0 5
36 20 Male 3 3 3 3 0 16
37 20 Female 1 0 0 1 0 7
38 20 Female 2 2 2 2 1 16
39 19 Male 1 0 0 1 0 9
40 20 Female 3 2 2 2 0 18

HOUSEHOLD SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

ENUMERATOR’S NAME……………………………… TELEPHONE……………………
DATE OF INTERVIEW………………………TIME FROM………..TO…………SIGN……………
SUPERVISOR’S NAME…………………………………………SIGN……………………DATE…………………STUDY SITE……………………………………………………
______________________________________________________________________________PART 1: LOCATION IDENTIFICATION
ROAD NO. /NAME………………………………………
REGION………………………………………. CONSTITUENCY………………………..
SUBLOCATION……………………………… VILLAGE ………………………………..
______________________________________________________________________________
PART 2: INFORMATION ON THE RESPONDENT
NAME……………………………………………… TELEPHONE.……………………..

Heading Household? YES 1 NO 2

Land ownership: Owner 1 Tenant 2 Acreage……………………..

No. of persons living in the household ……………………………..
______________________________________________________________________________
PART 3: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA (ENTER CODES INDICATED: 0-4)

SN Name of Household Member Age – in years Sex
1-M
2-F Relationship to Head of HH
1. Head
2. Spouse
3. Child
4. Grandchild
5. Worker
6. Others(Specify) Marital Status
0. Child
1. Married
2. Single
3. Widow/
Widower
4. Separated/
Divorced
Remarks
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
PART 4: EDUCATION, OCCUPATION AND INCOME LEVELS OF HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS (ENTER CODES INDICATED: 1-7)
Name of Household Member (Over 18 years) Relationship to Head of HH
1. Head
2. Spouse
3. Child
4. Grandchild
5. Worker
6. Others (Specify) Education Level
0. None
1. Literacy Graduate
2. Primary
3. Secondary
4. Tertiary (College, University) Main Occupation
0. Unemployed
1. Farmer
2. Trader
3. Artisan
4. Casual Laborer
5. Salaried
6. Self Employment (Specify)
7. Student
8. Others(Specify) Monthly Incomes
Ksh P.M
0. None
1. Less Than 2,500
2. 2,500-5,000
3. 5,000-10,000
4. 10,000-20,000
5. 20,000-30,000
6. 30,000-40,000
7. Over 40,000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
PART 5: SECONDARY SOURCES OF INCOME OF HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS (ENTER CODES INDICATED: 1-5)
Name of Household Member Relationship to Head of HH
1. Head
2. Spouse
3. Child
4. Grandchild
5. Worker
6. Others (Specify) Income From Main Occupation
(4) Ksh Secondary Sources
1. Farming
2. Business
3. Part Time Emp.
4. Remittances
From Relatives
5. Others(Specify) Monthly Incomes
Ksh P.M
1. Less Than 5,000
2. 5,000-10,000
3. 10,000-20,000
4. 20,000-30,000
5. Over 30,000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

I understand that my participation in this project will involve completing a household survey questionnaire that will take approximately 15minutes.

I understand that my participation in this study is entirely voluntary and that I can withdraw from the study at any time for any reason.

I understand that I am free to ask questions at any time. If for any reason I experience discomfort in any way I am free to withdraw or discuss my concerns with student s0608037 (e-mail: s0608037@glos.ac.uk)

I understand that the information provided by me will be held anonymously such that it is impossible to trace the information back to me individually. I understand that, in accordance with the Data Protection Act, this information may be retained indefinitely. Finally, I also understand that at the end of the study I will be provided with additional information and feedback.

I, ……………………………………………consent to participate in the study conducted by student s0608037. Dept. of Natural and Social Sciences, University of Gloucestershire.

Signed:
Date:

CLICK BUTTON TO ORDER NOW