close× Call Us
close×
Title Understanding public support for compromise and privacy in negotiations
Post date 06/04/2019
C1 Background and Explanation of Rationale This study examines under what conditions private negotiations are more acceptable to voters. We are interested in how the effects of private versus public negotiations on legislator evaluations vary depending on whether the compromise passes or fails and which party (or bipartisan group) proposes meeting in private. See pre-analysis plan for more details.
C2 What are the hypotheses to be tested? H1 (private): Reading about a private negotiation will reduce support for the Senator (approval and vote intention) H2 (failure): Reading about a compromise that failed will reduce support for the Senator (approval and vote intention) H3A (copartisans and private): Among partisan voters, the negative effect of a private negotiation will be lessened when it is proposed by a copartisan (relative to an opposing partisan). H3B (bipartisan and private): Among both partisan and independent voters, the negative effect of a private negotiation will be lessened when it is proposed by a bipartisan group (relative to an opposing partisan).
C3 How will these hypotheses be tested? * We will estimate the following models: Equation 1: Sample: Self-identified partisan voters 〖Approval〗_i= α+ β_1 〖Private〗_i+ β_2 〖Failure〗_i+ β_3 〖Bipartisan〗_(i )+β_4 〖Copartisan〗_i+ β_5 〖Legislator is Copartisan〗_i+ε_i Equation 2: Sample: Independent voters 〖Approval〗_i= α+ β_1 〖Private〗_i+ β_2 〖Failure〗_i+ β_3 〖Bipartisans〗_(i )+ε_i The first set of hypotheses predict that β_1will be negative and β_2will be negative. Note that the same analyses will be conducted with general election vote intention as the dependent variable as well. We will also analyze primary vote intention as the dependent variable only among those who are copartisans of the assigned Senator. To test H3A and H3B, we focus on the following models: Equation 3: Sample: Self-identified partisan voters 〖Approval〗_i= α+ β_1 〖Private〗_i+ β_2 〖Failure〗_i+ β_3 〖Bipartisan〗_(i )+β_4 〖Copartisan〗_i+ β_5 〖Private〗_i*〖Copartisan〗_(i )+β_6 〖Private〗_i*〖Bipartisan〗_i+ β_7 〖Legislator is Copartisan〗_i+ε_i Equation 4: Sample: Independent voters 〖Approval〗_i= α+ β_1 〖Private〗_i+ β_2 〖Failure〗_i+ β_3 〖Bipartisan〗_(i )+ β_6 〖Private〗_i*〖Bipartisan〗_i+ε_i If H3A is correct, β_5 will be positive in Equation 3. If H3B is correct, β_6 will be positive in both regressions.
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