Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/295248 
Year of Publication: 
2024
Series/Report no.: 
I4R Discussion Paper Series No. 119
Publisher: 
Institute for Replication (I4R), s.l.
Abstract: 
Schwardmann et al. (2022) provide evidence from real-world debating competitions, that being randomly assigned to, and arguing for a given motion, increases one's own beliefs in the merit of the motion, and increases beliefs that factual statements in support of the motion, are correct. We conduct a robustness replication, focused on three main tests: i) Are results robust to the inclusion of controls for baseline beliefs via a differencesin-differences specification? ii) As error terms are plausibly correlated across outcome variables, are results robust to addressing this dependence through seemingly unrelated regression? iii) Whether results are robust to inclusion of team-level fixed effects? All findings of the paper are robust to these tests, and to a suite of other robustness exercises. We close our comment with a discussion of possible extensions which indicate potential heterogeneity in self-persuasion by gender, and by side of the debate.
Subjects: 
Replication
confidence
beliefs
persuasion
JEL: 
C93
D12
D72
D83
D91
I23
Document Type: 
Working Paper

Files in This Item:
File
Size
968.28 kB





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.