# 372 | ResearchBox

ResearchBox # 372 - 'Learning Goals in Attitude Conflict'

Bingo Table
  Show file names
  Show file IDs
  Show timestamps
Study 1a

  Study 1a - AsPredicted #39682.pdf

  Study 1a Survey.docx


  Study 1a coded goals.csv


  Study 1a Data Long.csv


  Study 1a Data.csv

  Study 1a Analyses.R

  Goal Coding Scheme_final.docx

Study 1b

  Study 1b - AsPredicted #50998.pdf

  Study 1b Survey.docx


  Study 1b Data.csv

  Study 1b Analyses.R

Study 1c

  Study 1c - AsPredicted #69932.pdf

  Study 1c Survey.docx


  Study 1c Data.csv

  Study 1c Analyses.R

Study 2

  Study 2 - AsPredicted #47766.pdf

  Study 2 Main Survey.docx

  Study 2 Pre Survey.docx


  Study 2 Data.csv

  Study 2 Data Analysis.R

Study 3

  Study 3 - AsPredicted #58731.pdf

  Study 3 Survey.docx


  Study 3 Data.csv

  Study 3 Analyses.R

Study 4

  Study 4 - AsPredicted #52618.pdf

  Study 4 Survey.docx


  Study 4 Data.csv

  Study 4 Analyses.R

Study 5

  Study 5 - AsPredicted #64054.pdf

  Study 5 Survey.docx


  Study 5 Data.csv

  Study 5 Analysis.R

Previewing files
Files can be previewed by clicking on descriptions.
Codebooks can be previewed by clicking on


Tell us if something is wrong with this Box


Collins HK, Dorison CA, Gino F, Minson JA. (2022) 'Underestimating Counterparts’ Learning Goals Impairs Conflictual Conversations'. Psychological Science. V33(10):1732-1752.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976221085494

All content posted to ResearchBox is under a CC By 4.0 License (all use is allowed as long as authorship of the content is attributed). When using content from ResearchBox please cite the original work, and provide a link to the URL for this box (https://researchbox.org/372).

February 01, 2022   (files may not be changed, deleted, or added)

Hanne Collins (hcollins@hbs.edu)
Charles Dorison (charles.dorison@georgetown.edu)

Given the difficulty people have engaging with disagreeing views across contexts—from political discussions to workplace conflicts—it is critical to understand how conflictual conversation can be improved. While previous work has focused on strategies to change individual-level mindsets (e.g., encouraging open-mindedness), we investigated the role of partisans’ beliefs about their counterparts. Across seven pre-registered studies (N=2,614), people consistently under-estimated how willing disagreeing counterparts were to learn about their views (compared to themselves and to agreeing others). Further, this belief strongly predicted greater derogation of attitude opponents and more negative expectations for conflictual conversations. Critically, in both American partisan politics and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a short informational intervention that increased beliefs that counterparts were willing to learn about one’s views decreased derogation and increased willingness to engage in the future. We build on research recognizing the power of the situation to highlight a fruitful new focus for conflict research.


The authors have written the following message for visitors to this box.
Please note that these messages can be modified or deleted at any point (even after a box is made permanent)

Update August 2023:

Dear Reader,

We have conducted an internal audit of this research and remain confident in the findings. We have access to the raw data for every single study in Qualtrics (and Chatplat for Study 2). Using this raw data, we are able to replicate all of the results in the publication using the cleaning and analysis code files posted online.

All of the materials, pre-registrations, data and code associated with the original publication are available on this ResearchBox. The data posted here was subjected to some initial cleaning. We have now posted the raw data and cleaning code to get from the raw data outputs from Qualtrics to the cleaned data posted here on a separate OSF page: https://osf.io/h48fs/?view_only=181f87d7ced84f18841f7f766e300490.

Note that the "raw" data we are posting is missing any columns that are considered to be "identifiable information" by our IRB. This includes things such as IP Addresses, Latitude/Longitude, Prolific/MTurk IDs, and verbatim content of participant conversations.

If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to reach out to Hanne at hcollins@hbs.edu.


Hanne K. Collins

Charles A. Dorison

Julia A. Minson


Dear Reader,

Due to a coding error, in Study 4 we excluded data from an additional 75 participants who were matched with agreeing (rather than disagreeing) partners. We discovered this error prior to publication, but after making our ResearchBox public (and thus no longer editable). To reproduce the numbers in the manuscript, please add the code below to line 14 in the code file for Study 4.


If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to reach out to me at hcollins@hbs.edu.





#-Correct coding error (some people saw an agreeing statement instead of disagreeing)

study4$attitude_check <- ifelse(study4$issue == "stem" & study4$stem > 4, "agree",

                                ifelse(study4$issue == "stem" & study4$stem < 4, "disagree", 

                                       ifelse(study4$issue == "isis" & study4$isis > 4, "agree",

                                              ifelse(study4$issue == "isis" & study4$isis < 4, "disagree", NA))))


table(study4$attitude, study4$attitude_check, useNA = "ifany")

study4$attitude_match <- study4$attitude==study4$attitude_check

table(study4$attitude_match) #75 exclusions


study4$error_exclude <- ifelse(study4$attitude_match=="FALSE", 1, NA)



study4 <- study4[is.na(study4$error_exclude),]

This version: August 30, 2023