Data analysis for survey items
| Table | Measure (Table 1) | How this was calculated |
|---|---|---|
| IV | Education ED1 Education level | Frequency and percentage presented for each category |
| IV | Education ED2 Ability to think critically | Factor analysis was conducted on 12 items, with each item weighted and consolidated into a single representative factor based on the criterion of eigenvalues greater than 1. Country-level averages were then calculated for this factor, with minimum and maximum values presented for reference |
| V | Networks NW1 Network size | Factor analysis was conducted on nine items, with each item weighted and consolidated into a single representative factor based on the criterion of eigenvalues greater than 1. Country-level averages were then calculated for this factor, with minimum and maximum values presented for reference |
| V | Networks NW2 – 5 Ideas network centrality and tie strength | For each question: factor analysis was conducted on 12 items, with each item based on the criterion of eigenvalues greater than 1. Country weighted and consolidated into a single representative factor -level averages were then calculated for this factor, with minimum and maximum values presented for reference |
| VI | Networks NW6 Ideas network openness | Percentages presented for each category and ordered by most chosen to least |
| V | Networks NW7 Network density | Factor analysis was conducted on 10 items, with each item weighted and consolidated into two representative factors based on the criterion of eigenvalues greater than 1. Country-level averages were then calculated for these factors, with minimum and maximum values presented for reference. Representative factors werenetwork homophily, where close friends shared the same political views and wider beliefs, hobbies and know one another and social capital, the extent to which close friends belonged to the same clubs and communities as them |
| VII | Ideas Engagement IE1 and IE2 Values ideas engagement | Scores assigned from 0 to 4 on a five-point scale. Averages generated. Range included |
| VII | Ideas Engagement IE3 Seeking out ideas | Factor analysis was conducted on 14 items, with each item weighted and consolidated into three representative factors based on the criterion of eigenvalues greater than 1. Country-level averages were then calculated for these factors, with minimum and maximum values presented for reference. Representative factors were active in-person engagement with ideas; digital exploration of ideas and traditional consumption of ideas |
| VIII | Ideas Engagement IE4 Reasons for how ideas are sought out | Percentages presented for each category and ordered by most chosen to least |
| VII | Ideas Engagement IE5 Able to identify positive and dark ideas effectively | Score given to each correct answer, these were converted to an overall average, an average for those relating to dark ideas, and an average relating to positive ideas |
| IX | Prospection PR1 Whether respondents possess a prospective mindset | Calculations based on Ruscio et al. (2023). Averages from a five-point scale were taken for different categories with this being combined to a single average |
| Table | Measure ( | How this was calculated |
|---|---|---|
| IV | Education ED1 | Frequency and percentage presented for each category |
| IV | Education ED2 | Factor analysis was conducted on 12 items, with each item weighted and consolidated into a single representative factor based on the criterion of eigenvalues greater than 1. Country-level averages were then calculated for this factor, with minimum and maximum values presented for reference |
| V | Networks NW1 | Factor analysis was conducted on nine items, with each item weighted and consolidated into a single representative factor based on the criterion of eigenvalues greater than 1. Country-level averages were then calculated for this factor, with minimum and maximum values presented for reference |
| V | Networks NW2 – 5 | For each question: factor analysis was conducted on 12 items, with each item based on the criterion of eigenvalues greater than 1. Country weighted and consolidated into a single representative factor -level averages were then calculated for this factor, with minimum and maximum values presented for reference |
| VI | Networks NW6 | Percentages presented for each category and ordered by most chosen to least |
| V | Networks NW7 | Factor analysis was conducted on 10 items, with each item weighted and consolidated into two representative factors based on the criterion of eigenvalues greater than 1. Country-level averages were then calculated for these factors, with minimum and maximum values presented for reference. Representative factors werenetwork homophily, where close friends shared the same political views and wider beliefs, hobbies and know one another and social capital, the extent to which close friends belonged to the same clubs and communities as them |
| VII | Ideas Engagement IE1 and IE2 | Scores assigned from 0 to 4 on a five-point scale. Averages generated. Range included |
| VII | Ideas Engagement IE3 | Factor analysis was conducted on 14 items, with each item weighted and consolidated into three representative factors based on the criterion of eigenvalues greater than 1. Country-level averages were then calculated for these factors, with minimum and maximum values presented for reference. Representative factors were active in-person engagement with ideas; digital exploration of ideas and traditional consumption of ideas |
| VIII | Ideas Engagement IE4 | Percentages presented for each category and ordered by most chosen to least |
| VII | Ideas Engagement IE5 | Score given to each correct answer, these were converted to an overall average, an average for those relating to dark ideas, and an average relating to positive ideas |
| IX | Prospection PR1 | Calculations based on |
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.