Russel-Research-Method-in-Anthropology

606 Chapter 20
TABLE 20.4b
A3 2 Table of Household Type by Race in the United States in 1997 (in Thousands)
White African American Row Total
Two parents 21,914 1,974 23,888
(77.6%) (40.4%)
Single female parent 4,997 2,594 7,591
(17.7%) (53.1%)
Single male parent 1,325 319 1,644
(4.7%) (6.5%)
Column total 28,236 4,887 33,123
(100%) (100%)
SOURCE: Statistical Abstracts of the United States, 1998, Table 79.
I prefer to keep tables uncluttered and to show only the percentages in each
cell and the n for each column. You get a better understanding of what’s going
on from percentages than from raw numbers in a table like this, and the interested
reader can always calculate the n for each cell.
In bivariate tables, no matter what size (2 2, 3 2, or larger tables), the
convention is to put the dependent variables in the rows and the independent
variable in the columns. Then there’s an easy rule to follow in reading a table:
percentage down the columns and interpret across the rows. There are, of
course, exceptions—they are, after all, conventions and not laws. When the
independent variable has too many categories to fit on a narrow page, it makes
sense to show the independent variables in the rows.
Percentaging down table 20.4a, we see that 77.6% of white households with
children had two parents in 1997, and 22.4% of those households were headed
by single parents. In black households with children, the percentages are
40.4% and 59.6%, respectively. Interpreting across, weseethat77.6%of
white households with children had two parents in 1997 compared to 40.4%
for black households. Among single-parent households, 22.4% were white and
59.6% were black.
Interpreting the numbers in a cross-tab forces you to think about explanations.
The probability of a child having two parents was much higher for white
children in 1996 than it was for black children—nearly two times higher, in
fact.
What’s going on? As I explained in chapter 2, association between two variables
does not, by itself, imply cause—no matter how strong the association.
The dependent variable in table 20.4 is obviously family type. Nobody’s skin