| Approach 1 . | Approach 2 . | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 . | Model 2 . | Model 3 . | Model 4 . | |
| Increase in Chinese in the vicinity . | Increase in Koreans in the vicinity . | Accept Chinese or Korean as relatives . | Accept Chinese or Korean as relatives . | |
| First stage | ||||
| Chinese population density in each region (IV) | 8.426*** (1.418) | |||
| Korean population density in each region (IV) | 11.468*** (1.226) | |||
| Chinese and Korean population density in each prefecture (IV) | 4.267* (2.138) | 4.267* (2.138) | ||
| Second stage | ||||
| Chinese friends (not have = 0; have = 1) | –6.521* (3.307) | |||
| Korean friends (not have = 0; have = 1) | –1.084 (1.440) | |||
| chinese or korean acquaintances (none = 0; either = 1; both = 2) | 2.791 (2.534) | –2.085 (2.169) | ||
| Survey year, relations index | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Age, educational attainment, urbanity of dwelling, income bracket, and gender | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Nested within HLM | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Log likelihood | −4,006 | −4,516 | −1,880 | −2,174 |
| N | 7,159 | 7,133 | 3,369 | 3,373 |
| Approach 1 . | Approach 2 . | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 . | Model 2 . | Model 3 . | Model 4 . | |
| Increase in Chinese in the vicinity . | Increase in Koreans in the vicinity . | Accept Chinese or Korean as relatives . | Accept Chinese or Korean as relatives . | |
| First stage | ||||
| Chinese population density in each region (IV) | 8.426*** (1.418) | |||
| Korean population density in each region (IV) | 11.468*** (1.226) | |||
| Chinese and Korean population density in each prefecture (IV) | 4.267* (2.138) | 4.267* (2.138) | ||
| Second stage | ||||
| Chinese friends (not have = 0; have = 1) | –6.521* (3.307) | |||
| Korean friends (not have = 0; have = 1) | –1.084 (1.440) | |||
| chinese or korean acquaintances (none = 0; either = 1; both = 2) | 2.791 (2.534) | –2.085 (2.169) | ||
| Survey year, relations index | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Age, educational attainment, urbanity of dwelling, income bracket, and gender | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Nested within HLM | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Log likelihood | −4,006 | −4,516 | −1,880 | −2,174 |
| N | 7,159 | 7,133 | 3,369 | 3,373 |
Note: 1. Because the ICPP survey does not cover all prefecture-specific respondents, its population densities are broken down by region. 2. The relational indices in Models 1 and 2 are respectively for Sino-Japanese relations and Japan-South Korea relations, whereas in Models 3 and 4, the indices pertain to Japan’s relations with both China and South Korea.
Logit regression. The full results are available in Table A5 in the Supplementary Material.
Standard errors are in parentheses, *** P < .001, ** P < .01,* P < .05 (two-tailed test).
| Approach 1 . | Approach 2 . | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 . | Model 2 . | Model 3 . | Model 4 . | |
| Increase in Chinese in the vicinity . | Increase in Koreans in the vicinity . | Accept Chinese or Korean as relatives . | Accept Chinese or Korean as relatives . | |
| First stage | ||||
| Chinese population density in each region (IV) | 8.426*** (1.418) | |||
| Korean population density in each region (IV) | 11.468*** (1.226) | |||
| Chinese and Korean population density in each prefecture (IV) | 4.267* (2.138) | 4.267* (2.138) | ||
| Second stage | ||||
| Chinese friends (not have = 0; have = 1) | –6.521* (3.307) | |||
| Korean friends (not have = 0; have = 1) | –1.084 (1.440) | |||
| chinese or korean acquaintances (none = 0; either = 1; both = 2) | 2.791 (2.534) | –2.085 (2.169) | ||
| Survey year, relations index | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Age, educational attainment, urbanity of dwelling, income bracket, and gender | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Nested within HLM | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Log likelihood | −4,006 | −4,516 | −1,880 | −2,174 |
| N | 7,159 | 7,133 | 3,369 | 3,373 |
| Approach 1 . | Approach 2 . | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 . | Model 2 . | Model 3 . | Model 4 . | |
| Increase in Chinese in the vicinity . | Increase in Koreans in the vicinity . | Accept Chinese or Korean as relatives . | Accept Chinese or Korean as relatives . | |
| First stage | ||||
| Chinese population density in each region (IV) | 8.426*** (1.418) | |||
| Korean population density in each region (IV) | 11.468*** (1.226) | |||
| Chinese and Korean population density in each prefecture (IV) | 4.267* (2.138) | 4.267* (2.138) | ||
| Second stage | ||||
| Chinese friends (not have = 0; have = 1) | –6.521* (3.307) | |||
| Korean friends (not have = 0; have = 1) | –1.084 (1.440) | |||
| chinese or korean acquaintances (none = 0; either = 1; both = 2) | 2.791 (2.534) | –2.085 (2.169) | ||
| Survey year, relations index | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Age, educational attainment, urbanity of dwelling, income bracket, and gender | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Nested within HLM | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Log likelihood | −4,006 | −4,516 | −1,880 | −2,174 |
| N | 7,159 | 7,133 | 3,369 | 3,373 |
Note: 1. Because the ICPP survey does not cover all prefecture-specific respondents, its population densities are broken down by region. 2. The relational indices in Models 1 and 2 are respectively for Sino-Japanese relations and Japan-South Korea relations, whereas in Models 3 and 4, the indices pertain to Japan’s relations with both China and South Korea.
Logit regression. The full results are available in Table A5 in the Supplementary Material.
Standard errors are in parentheses, *** P < .001, ** P < .01,* P < .05 (two-tailed test).
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
View Article Abstract & Purchase OptionsFor full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.
