|
Field
Power calculation: Minimum Detectable Effect Size for Main Outcomes
|
Before
Power analyses based on results from quantitative pretest
Hypothesis 1: Respondents are less likely to support the Co2 policy if they receive the economic treatment, as compared to the control group.
Power analyses based on pretests of our study design show that we can detect a change of half a point on our answer scale between framing groups with a power of 100% at the conventional statistical significance level of 5% and 1%.
Hypothesis 2: Respondents are more likely to support the Co2 policy if they receive the generational treatment, as compared to the control group.
Power analyses for this hypothesis shows that we can detect a change of half a point on our answer scale between framing groups with a power of 20% at the conventional statistical significance level of 5%.
Hypothesis 3: Respondents are less likely to support the Co2 policy if they receive the economic treatment, as compared to the economic treatment.
Power analyses for H3 shows that we can detect a change of half a point on our answer scale between framing groups with a power of 99.8% (95.3%) at the conventional statistical significance level of 5% (and 1%).
Order effect hypotheses:
Hypothesis 4: Respondents are more likely to support the Co2 policy if they receive the generational treatment, as compared to the mixed treatment group.
Power analyses for H4 shows that we can detect a change of half a point on our answer scale between framing groups with a power of 99.9% at the conventional statistical significance level of 5%.
Hypothesis 5: Respondents are less likely to support the Co2 policy if they receive the economic treatment, as compared to the mixed treatment group.
Power analyses for H5 shows that we can detect a change of half a point on our answer scale between framing groups with a power of 13.3% at the conventional statistical significance level of 5%.
Hypothesis 6: There is an order effect in whether respondents see the economic or the generational treatment first.
Power analyses for H5 shows that we can detect a change of half a point on our answer scale between framing groups with a power of 5.2% at the conventional statistical significance level of 5%.
Court treatment hypothesis:
Hypothesis 7: Respondents are less likely to support the Co2 policy if they receive the court treatment, as compared to the control group.
Power analyses for H7 shows that we can detect a change of half a point on our answer scale between framing groups with a power of 100% at the conventional statistical significance level of 5% and 1%.
See documentation for full information and results from the power analyses.
|
After
Power analyses based on results from quantitative pretest
Hypothesis 1: Respondents are less likely to support the Co2 policy if they receive the economic treatment, as compared to the control group.
Power analyses based on pretests of our study design show that we can detect a change of half a point on our answer scale between framing groups with a power of 100% at the conventional statistical significance level of 5% and 1%.
Hypothesis 2: Respondents are more likely to support the Co2 policy if they receive the generational treatment, as compared to the control group.
Power analyses for this hypothesis shows that we can detect a change of half a point on our answer scale between framing groups with a power of 20% at the conventional statistical significance level of 5%.
Hypothesis 3: Respondents are less likely to support the Co2 policy if they receive the economic treatment, as compared to the generational treatment.
Power analyses for H3 shows that we can detect a change of half a point on our answer scale between framing groups with a power of 99.8% (95.3%) at the conventional statistical significance level of 5% (and 1%).
Order effect hypotheses:
Hypothesis 4: Respondents are more likely to support the Co2 policy if they receive the generational treatment, as compared to the mixed treatment group.
Power analyses for H4 shows that we can detect a change of half a point on our answer scale between framing groups with a power of 99.9% at the conventional statistical significance level of 5%.
Hypothesis 5: Respondents are less likely to support the Co2 policy if they receive the economic treatment, as compared to the mixed treatment group.
Power analyses for H5 shows that we can detect a change of half a point on our answer scale between framing groups with a power of 13.3% at the conventional statistical significance level of 5%.
Hypothesis 6: There is an order effect in whether respondents see the economic or the generational treatment first.
Power analyses for H5 shows that we can detect a change of half a point on our answer scale between framing groups with a power of 5.2% at the conventional statistical significance level of 5%.
Court treatment hypothesis:
Hypothesis 7: Respondents are less likely to support the Co2 policy if they receive the court treatment, as compared to the control group.
Power analyses for H7 shows that we can detect a change of half a point on our answer scale between framing groups with a power of 100% at the conventional statistical significance level of 5% and 1%.
See documentation for full information and results from the power analyses.
|