Replication Data for: Evaluating Methods for Examining the Relative Persuasiveness of Policy Arguments

Survey researchers testing the effectiveness of arguments for or against policies traditionally employ between-subjects designs. In doing so, they lose statistical power and the ability to precisely estimate public attitudes. We explore the efficacy of an approach often used to address these limitations: the repeated measures within-subjects design (RMWS). This study tests the competing hypotheses that 1) the RMWS will yield smaller effects due to respondents’ desire to maintain consistency (the “opinion anchor hypothesis”), and 2) the RMWS will yield larger effects because the researcher provides respondents with the opportunity to update their attitudes (the “opportunity to revise” hypothesis). Using two survey experiments, we find evidence for the opportunity to revise hypothesis, and discuss the implications for future survey research.