Data and Code for: Self-Persuasion: Evidence from Field Experimentsat International Debating Competitions
Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s) Egon Tripodi, University of Essex; Peter Schwardmann, Carnegie Mellon University; Joel van der Weele, University of Amsterdam
Version: View help for Version V1
| Name | File Type | Size | Last Modified |
|---|---|---|---|
| replication_package | 11/10/2021 11:08:AM |
Project Citation:
Tripodi, Egon, Schwardmann, Peter, and van der Weele, Joel. Data and Code for: Self-Persuasion: Evidence from Field Experimentsat International Debating Competitions. Nashville, TN: American Economic Association [publisher], 2022. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2022-03-24. https://doi.org/10.3886/E148242V1
Project Description
Summary:
View help for Summary
This is data and code accompanying the article Self-Persuasion: Evidence from Field Experimentsat International Debating Competitions
Abstract
Laboratory evidence shows that when people have to argue for a given position, they persuade themselves about the position’s factual and moral superiority. Such self-persuasion limits the po- tential of communication to resolve conflict and reduce polarization. We test for this phenomenon in a field setting, at international debating competitions that randomly assign experienced and mo- tivated debaters to argue one side of a topical motion. We find self-persuasion in factual beliefs and confidence in one’s position. Effect sizes are smaller than in the laboratory, but robust to a one-hour exchange of arguments and a ten-fold increase in incentives for accuracy.
Abstract
Laboratory evidence shows that when people have to argue for a given position, they persuade themselves about the position’s factual and moral superiority. Such self-persuasion limits the po- tential of communication to resolve conflict and reduce polarization. We test for this phenomenon in a field setting, at international debating competitions that randomly assign experienced and mo- tivated debaters to argue one side of a topical motion. We find self-persuasion in factual beliefs and confidence in one’s position. Effect sizes are smaller than in the laboratory, but robust to a one-hour exchange of arguments and a ten-fold increase in incentives for accuracy.
Scope of Project
Subject Terms:
View help for Subject Terms
political debate;
field experiment;
self-persuasion;
motivated reasoning
JEL Classification:
View help for JEL Classification
C93 Field Experiments
D83 Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
D91 Micro-Based Behavioral Economics: Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
C93 Field Experiments
D83 Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
D91 Micro-Based Behavioral Economics: Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
Geographic Coverage:
View help for Geographic Coverage
Germany,
The Netherlands,
United Kingdom
Data Type(s):
View help for Data Type(s)
experimental data
Methodology
Sampling:
View help for Sampling
Participants of debating competitions.
Collection Mode(s):
View help for Collection Mode(s)
on-site questionnaire;
web-based survey
Unit(s) of Observation:
View help for Unit(s) of Observation
Individuals
Related Publications
Published Versions
Report a Problem
Found a serious problem with the data, such as disclosure risk or copyrighted content? Let us know.
This material is distributed exactly as it arrived from the data depositor. ICPSR has not checked or processed this material. Users should consult the investigator(s) if further information is desired.