This file gives descriptions of the data for the paper "Framing effect in evaluation of others' predictions". Many questions and response options were the same across experiments. Descriptions are given only for question types not explained in earlier experiments. Independent variables are marked by a prefix of "cond."; main dependent variables are usually marked by a prefix of "dv.". Questions in Experiment 1B were somewhat different as they were run in Chinese using LimeSurvey (all other experiments were in English and were run using Qualtrics). # # Experiment 1A # AC: Attention check response. The correct response is the modal response in each experiment. cond.cong: congruence condition cond.result: outcome condition cond.same_agent: whether the same agent is used in the prediction and the outcome. dv.wrong: Was the prediction wrong? dv.accu: Accuracy rating mem: Which of the following is closest to the wording of the prediction that the other student made? motivation: How motivated were you during this experiment? know.foot: How knowledgeable are you about football? sex: 1-Male, 2-Female, 3-Prefer not to say (some experiments only allowed 1 and 2, but this question was always optional) age: edu: What is the highest level of education you have completed? employ: What is your employment status? job.type: If you are employed full time: what is the nature of your job? If you are a student: what is your area of study? If you are retired/not employed: what is the nature of your last job/area of study? feedback: Do you have any other feedback for this experiment? === Keys for multiple choice responses === mem: 1-University A had a 70% chance of winning. 2-University A had a 30% chance of winning. 3-University B had a 70% chance of winning. 4-University B had a 30% chance of winning. motivation: 1-Very Much 2-Mostly 3-Not Really 4-Not At All know.foot: 1-Not really (e.g. I rarely or never watch football) 2-Somewhat (e.g. I watch a game once in a while) 3-Pretty knowledgeable (e.g. I watch most games that features my favorite team) 4-Very knowledgeable (e.g. I often watch more than one game on game days) edu: 1-Less than High School 2-High School/GED 3-Some College 4-2-Year College Degree (Associates) 5-4-Year College Degree (BA, BS) 6-Master's Degree 7-Doctoral Degree 8-Professional Degree (MD, JD) employ: 1-Student 2-Employed 3-Homemaker 4-Not Employed 5-Retired # # Experiment 1B # cond: AC: cond.cong: cond.result: cond.same_agent: dv.wrong: dv.accu: mem: Which of the following is closest to the wording of the prediction that the other student made? motiv: age: major: major in school year: current year in school ethnicity: know.basket: sex: 1-F; 2-M === Keys for multiple choice responses === mem: A1-University X had a 70% chance of winning. A2-University X had a 30% chance of winning. A3-University Y had a 70% chance of winning. A4-University Y had a 30% chance of winning. motiv: A1-Very Much A2-Mostly A3-Not Really A4-Not At All year: A0-high school A1-college student, graduating 2013 A2-college student, graduating 2012 A3-college student, graduating 2011 A4-college student, graduating 2010 A5-college student, graduating 2009 A6-masters student, graduating 2013 A7-masters student, graduating 2012 A8-masters student, graduating 2011 A9-doctoral student A10-not a student know.basket: A1-not knowledgeable at all A2-somewhat knowledgeable A3-quite knowledgeable A4-very knowledgeable # # Experiment 2 # Every variable in this experiment was the same as the one with the same name in Experiment 1A, except dv.correct. AC: cond.cong: dv.correct: Was the prediction made by the other student right? dv.accu: mem: motivation: know.foot: sex: age: edu: employ: job.type: feedback: === Keys for multiple choice responses === mem: 1-University A had a 70% chance of winning. 2-University A had a 30% chance of winning. 3-University B had a 70% chance of winning. 4-University B had a 30% chance of winning. # # Experiment 3 # AC: cond.cong: cond.agent: cond.wl: winner/loser condition dv.accu: dv.fav: Which party do you think was the favorite before the election? 1-NRT; 9-CTS mem: Exactly what was the prediction that Acme inc. made? reli.ness: reli.which: What religion do you belong to? reli.which_text: Free text response for reli.which poli: How knowledgeable are you about politics in general? sex: age: === Keys for multiple choice responses === mem: 1-NRT party had an 80 percent chance of winning. 2-NRT party had a 20 percent chance of winning. 3-CTS party had an 80 percent chance of winning. 4-CTS party had a 20 percent chance of winning. reli.which: 1-Protestantism 2-Catholicism 3-Islam 4-Buddhism 5-Hinduism 6-Others 7-Agnostic 8-Spiritual but not religious 9-Atheist 10-Other religion not listed here (please enter below) poli: 1-Very unknowledgeable 2-Somewhat unknowledgeable 3-Neutral 4-Somewhat knowledgeable 5-Very knowledgeable # # Experiment 4 # AC1: Attention check---only data from subjects who passed the first AC were used in the analysis. AC2: Attention check 2---in this experiment we gave subjects who failed the first attention a message, letting them know that they had not responded to the previous question correctly, and gave them a chance to make a different response. cond.pred: P-70% Pass; F-30% Fail cond.result1: whether outcome was pass of fail in in original scenario cond.cong: congruency in original scenario cond.alt.cong: congruency in alternative scenario accu: accuracy rating in original scenario alt.accu: accuracy rating in alternative scenario mem: Exactly what kind of comment did the other student make? motiv: know.elect: How knowledgeable are you about college elections in general? (same 5-point scale as other "knowledge" questions) sex: age: edu: employ: job.type: feedback: === Keys for multiple choice responses === mem: 1-He predicted that there was a 70% chance that the proposition will pass. 2-He predicted that there was a 30% chance that the proposition will pass. 3-He predicted that there was a 70% chance that the proposition will fail. 4-He predicted that there was a 30% chance that the proposition will fail. # # Experiment 5 # AC: cond.order: indicates counter-balancing condition on the order of presentation cond.distr: indicates counter-balancing condition about which predictions turned out to be correct dv.accu.pred: Which analyst do you think made the better predictions? dv.conf.pred: Which analyst do you think was more confident about the predictions? mem1: Acme expanded into the European Union. mem2: Acme licensed crucial technology patents from their competitor CompX Company. mem3: Acme bought out their supplier SuperTech Company. mem4: Acme built another manufacturing plant within the U.S. mem5: Acme became a public company. mem.total: memory check score nume.subj.total: numeracy score motivation: know.stock: How knowledgeable are you about the the stock market? know.tech: How knowledgeable are you about technology companies? sex: age: edu: employ: job.type: feedback: Note: the memory question was "Which of the following actually happened?" with five checkboxes as responses. Depends on the condition, either 1&2 or 3&4 happened. The order of the five responses was randomized when presented to subjects. === Keys for multiple choice responses === know.stock: 1-Not really (e.g. I have never traded stocks before) 2-Somewhat (e.g. I have traded stocks a few times) 3-Pretty knowledgeable (e.g. I trade stocks once in a while) 4-Very knowledgeable (e.g. I trade stocks at least once every month) know.tech: 1-Not really (e.g. I don't know much about technology companies) 2-Somewhat (e.g. I have very basic knowledge about the major technology companies) 3-Pretty knowledgeable (e.g. I frequently read about tech news) 4-Very knowledgeable (e.g. I work in the technology industry and/or follow tech news daily) # # Experiment 6 # AC1: AC2: cond: PC-CI condition; PI-IC condition accu1: How accurate do you think Chris' prediction was? fut1: If there was a similar election in the future, and Chris made a prediction about its result, how accurate do you think his prediction would be? (7-point: Very Poor - Moderately - Extremely) know1: How knowledgeable do you think Chris was about this past election? (7-point: Very Poor - Moderately - Extremely) mem: Exactly what kind of comment did Chris make? fr.same: Do you agree that these two ways of stating the prediction are logically the same? fr.explain: Can you explain your answer briefly? fr.natural: Which of the two statements sounds more natural to you? accu2: How accurate do you think Chris' prediction was? fut2: If there was a similar election in the future, and Chris made a prediction about its result, how accurate do you think his prediction would be? (7-point: Very Poor - Moderately - Extremely) infl.self: How much do you think that these two different ways of stating the prediction affected your evaluations? infl.friend: Imagine that one of your friends also participated in this experiment. How much do you think that the different ways of stating the prediction might affect his or her judgments? motiv: know.europe: How knowledgeable are you about Europe in general? feedback: sex: age: edu: employ: job.type: === Keys for multiple choice responses === mem: Chris was 20% confident that the NRT party had won an earlier election. Chris predicted that CTS party had an 80% chance of winning the election. Chris predicted that NRT party had a 20% chance of winning the election. Chris was 80% confident that the CTS party had won an earlier election.