Industry Partnership Views Survey, United States, 2016 (ICPSR 37033)

Version Date: Jun 27, 2018

Cite this study |

Principal Investigator(s):
John Besley, Michigan State University

https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR37033.v1

Version V1

Slide tabs to view more

Summary

The contained collection was designed to assess potential perceptions of two hypothetical health science research collaborations. The studies were also designed to test the utility of using procedural justice concepts to assess perceptions of research legitimacy as a theoretical way to determine public opinions on conflicts of interest.

The researchers performed three experimental studies to examine how different combinations of partners in a research collaboration influence subjects' perceived procedural fairness and legitimacy based on collaborative partnerships.

Datafiles:

Experience 1: 1000 cases, 92 variables

Experience 2: 1058 cases, 88 variables

Experience 3: 2107 cases, 76 variables

For more information about this study, please visit the study publication here.

Citation

Besley, John. Industry Partnership Views Survey, United States, 2016. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2018-06-27. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR37033.v1

Export Citation:

  • RIS (generic format for RefWorks, EndNote, etc.)
  • EndNote

Subject Terms

Geographic Coverage

Smallest Geographic Unit

none

Distributor(s)

Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research
Hide

Time Period(s)

2016-04 -- 2016-08

Date of Collection

2016-05 -- 2016-07

Data Collection Notes

  1. String variables longer than 244 characters are included in a csv file.

  2. Several variable labels in datasets 2 and 3 were truncated in the original data. No information was provided.

Hide

Study Purpose

The contained collection was designed to assess potential perceptions of two hypothetical health science research collaborations. The studies were also designed to test the utility of using procedural justice concepts to assess perceptions of research legitimacy as a theoretical way to determine public opinions on conflicts of interest.

The researchers performed three experimental studies to examine how different combinations of partners in a research collaboration influence subjects' perceived procedural fairness and legitimacy based on collaborative partnerships.

Study Design

Study 1 subjects were told that the researchers wanted to learn their views about a potential new cooperative research partnership aimed at studying the possible negative health impacts of low levels of transfats in food. The only part of the message that varied across the experimental conditions was the specific combination of the following partners:

  • Kellogg's (a food company)
  • Purdue University
  • The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, a government agency) and
  • The Union of Concerned Scientists (a non-governmental organization).

    • For Study 2, the researchers chose to focus on the health impacts of genetically modified (GM) food. To aim for wider generalizability across Studies 1 and 2, they further clarified that the proposed research on GM food would investigate possible positive health impacts of new GM grains (e.g., rice, wheat, corn) that are being designed to absorb less toxic substances from the soil than do current grains. This focus on the potential positive health impacts of GM food in Study 2 may tap different dynamics than does the focus on the potential negative health impacts of small amounts of transfats in food in Study 1.

    Other than shifting the substantive focus from transfats to GM food and replacing the CDC with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as the governmental agency partner, Study 2 employed the same design and identical measures to those used in Study 1.

    Study 3 used the same transfats stimulus and between-subjects design with 15 randomly assigned conditions as in Study 1. After providing consent in the same manner as in Studies 1 and 2, subjects read their assigned description of a proposed partnership to examine the effects of small amounts of transfats in foods and answered the same three comprehension questions as used in Study 1. The remainder of the experiment simply asked subjects to respond to three open-ended questions about the partnership and its research.

    The experiment was administered via Qualtrics to subjects which were recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT), a crowdsourcing website where "requesters" solicit "workers" to perform "human intelligence tasks" (HITs) for pay. Participation was limited to adults residing in the United States.

    For more information about this study, please visit the study publication here.

    Sample

    For more information about this study, please visit the study publication here.

    Time Method

    Cross-sectional

    Universe

    Adults (18 and older) residing in the United States

    Unit(s) of Observation

    Individual

    Data Type(s)

    Mode of Data Collection

    Description of Variables

    Experience 1

    • Conflict of Interest Questions
    • Opinions on Research Partnership
    • Opinions on Health
    • Background Knowledge Testing
    • Media Attention
    • Demographic Variables

    Experience 2

    • Conflict of Interest Questions
    • Opinions on Research Partnership
    • Opinions on Health and Environment
    • Background Knowledge Testing
    • Demographic Variables

    Experience 3

    • Conflict of Interest Questions
    • Opinions on Research Partnership
    • Opinions on Health
    • Background Knowledge Testing
    • Media Attention
    • Demographic Variables

    Hide

    Original Release Date

    2018-06-27

    Version History

    2018-06-27 ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

    • Created online analysis version with question text.
    • Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.

    Hide

    Notes