close× Call Us
close×
Title Understanding public support for compromise: with whom and by whom
Post date 06/04/2019
C1 Background and Explanation of Rationale The aim of this study is to examine how compromises within the party are viewed relative to compromises between the parties, and whether the refusal to compromise is viewed differently for moderates and more extreme members. Research on American politics has focused heavily on polarization and the resulting conflicts between the two parties (McCarty et al. 2006) but has done little to examine conflicts within the parties (Green 2019). Yet in contemporary politics, fights between the moderate and ideologically extreme wings of the two parties are prominent, and the reasons these groups oppose compromises are often very different. The experiments in this study test how compromise is seen within versus across parties, whether an unwilling to compromise by moderates is viewed differently than an unwillingness to compromise by ideologically extreme members, and how interest group advocacy for or against compromise shapes public evaluations. See pre-analysis plan for more details.
C2 What are the hypotheses to be tested?

Experiment 1:
H1: Support for the members who oppose the bill will be lower when ideologically extreme members oppose it than when moderate members oppose it.
H2: The negative effect of ideologically extreme members will be mitigated when they share the partisanship of respondent.
Experiment 2:
H1 (cue): Among co-partisans, an interest group cue that opposes compromise will reduce support for compromise relative to an interest group cue that supports compromise.
Experiment 3:
H1 (ideology): Within party, respondents will rank somewhat liberal/conservative members as more likely to compromise than very liberal/conservative members.
H2 (partisanship): Among partisans and among a given ideological type (e.g., somewhat or very ideological), respondents will rank members of their own party as more likely to compromise than members of the opposing party.

C3 How will these hypotheses be tested? * See pre-analysis plan for details on regression models and difference in means tests.
C4 Country United States
C5 Scale (# of Units) 2500
C6 Was a power analysis conducted prior to data collection? No
C7 Has this research received Insitutional Review Board (IRB) or ethics committee approval? Yes
C8 IRB Number STU00209986
C9 Date of IRB Approval May 23, 2019
C10 Will the intervention be implemented by the researcher or a third party? Qualtrics
C11 Did any of the research team receive remuneration from the implementing agency for taking part in this research? No
C12 If relevant, is there an advance agreement with the implementation group that all results can be published? not provided by authors
C13 JEL Classification(s) Z18