Data: https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/GEPCEL

Article: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1065912916685186

For the experiment reported on in the Monkey Cage post, on a 0-to-1 scale in which 1 represents the strongest opposition to paying college athletes, the weighted level of opposition to paying college athletes among all whites was 0.647 in the control condition with no photograph, 0.760 in the black athletes condition, and 0.767 in the white athletes condition. For whites who scored 0.5 or higher on the racial resentment scale, levels of opposition were 0.663 for the control condition, 0.801 for the black athletes condition, and 0.796 for the white athletes condition.

The article reported on two survey experiments conducted after the Monkey Cage post was published. These additional experiments had more subtle primes and provided stronger evidence of bias. The March study had a coefficient of 0.062, a standard error of 0.042, and a p-value of p=0.139, and the April study had respective values of 0.072, 0.044, and p=0.109. Both analyses had attention check restrictions but not weights applied, and the racial resentment main effect and interaction term were not used. Higher values indicated more opposition to paying college athletes, and the treatment was coded higher than the control. The two studies had a combined effect size of 0.067 and a p-value of 0.030.

]]>(I'm hoping to release a new post this week or next.)

Best,

L.J

]]>Besides, I think, encouraging intellectual honesty in general, they have also encouraged me to go ahead and take a statistics course or two, so it doesn't take hours to understand each post!

]]>