|Title||Weathering the Storm: Discordant Learning about Reputations for Reliability|
|C1 Background and Explanation of Rationale||
This research focuses on reputations for reliability in alliance behavior. A reputation for reliability is posed as information regarding the likelihood that a state follows through with its alliance commitments. We anticipate that reputation change follows a Bayesian process where reputation acts as a prior while new observation of the state’s behavior act as additional data. The observer then updates the prior using the new data to develop a posterior belief regarding the state’s behavior (an updated reputation).
Whether or not there is a change in the quality (good or bad) of a reputation, therefore, depends on the new observations. For the purposes of this theory, let us divide this information into two types: congruent and incongruent. Congruent information, the observation of behavior that is in line with the prior, results in a posterior belief that is in agreement with the prior belief. For ease of interpretation, a state that has a good reputation for reliability and that demonstrates that reliability in the present will continue to have a good reputation for reliability.
|C2 What are the hypotheses to be tested?||
Hypothesis 1a: In minor crises, good reputations act as good will reservoirs that will sustain the positive reputation of the state.
Hypothesis 1b: In minor crises, states with a middling reputation will suﬀer a loss in reputation.
Hypothesis 2a: In major crises, all states will suﬀer a loss of reputation.
Hypothesis 2b: A state with a good reputation for reliability will suﬀer a greater decrease in reputation than states with middling reputations.
|C3 How will these hypotheses be tested? *||
We will employ a survey experiment using the Mechanical Turk infrastructure.
|C4 Country||United States|
|C5 Scale (# of Units)||200 respondents|
|C6 Was a power analysis conducted prior to data collection?||This is the pilot which will help inform the power analysis moving forward.|
|C7 Has this research received Insitutional Review Board (IRB) or ethics committee approval?||Yes|
|C8 IRB Number||18-1784|
|C9 Date of IRB Approval||08/13/2018|
|C10 Will the intervention be implemented by the researcher or a third party?||Researchers|
|C11 Did any of the research team receive remuneration from the implementing agency for taking part in this research?||No|
|C12 If relevant, is there an advance agreement with the implementation group that all results can be published?||not provided by authors|
|C13 JEL Classification(s)||not provided by authors|