English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The author thanks Professor Mutz for her informative reaction to his article. In this six-part response, the author first addresses Professor Mutz’s new claim that “Morgan’s interpretation suggests a misunderstanding of the panel models.” The author explains that this concern with his understanding can be set aside because Mutz’s interpretations of her own fixed-effects models are incorrect. The author then discusses very briefly four areas of disagreement that readers will want to judge on their own: the value of prejudice-incorporating explanations in comparison with status threat–only explanations, measurement assumptions about support for free trade, the value of adjustments for party identification, and how best to consider the political preferences of nonwhite voters when evaluating the status-threat explanation. The author concludes with a defense of two of his own prior published articles that Mutz critiques in her comment in an apparent attempt to widen the field of contestation.

Correct Interpretations of Fixed-effects Models, Specification Decisions, and Self-reports of Intended Votes: A Response to Mutz