This study asks whether different debriefing styles in misinformation experiments change participants' beliefs, attitudes toward the study, and perceptions of transparency. Using a preregistered experiment in the United States, the authors compare no debriefing, a general warning debriefing, and a specific debriefing that includes fact‑checks and source links to see which approaches correct misperceptions without unduly increasing skepticism.
The Question Investigated: How often do published articles depend on suppression effects to produce statistically significant results, and how often is that reliance disclosed?
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations between the EU and US were highly technical, yet provoked widespread protests with diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. We contend that transparency in these complex processes was a key factor driving public mobilization. Using survey experiments, we demonstrate a causal link: non-transparent decision-making significantly reduces citizens' appraisal of trade agreements independently of their economic consequences. Specifically, our findings reveal that transparent negotiations increase the likelihood of receiving public approval by nearly 16 percent compared to identical opaque agreements. This research underscores the importance of transparency in democratic policy evaluation processes.
Politicians may shirk if their performance is obscure to constituents. This paper theorizes that early dissemination of performance information can prompt incumbents to improve before the next election, especially where challengers are anticipated.
Transparency is widely seen as essential for accountability, but it is multi-dimensional and hard to measure. This research isolates one clear dimension: the state's collection and public dissemination of aggregate data, and develops a new objective index to capture it.
In a public goods game experiment observing citizen reactions to an unelected authority figure.