Science Advances

This PDF file includes:

• Section S1. Study design materials and methods
• Section S2. Primary analysis: Robustness and reliability of results
• Section S3. Secondary analysis: A Bayesian approach
• Section S4. Possible explanations for the null findings
• Section S5. Effects of publicly disseminated information
• Table S1. Individual study designs.
• Table S2. Descriptive statistics for sample of good news.
• Table S3. Descriptive statistics for sample of bad news.
• Table S4. Balance of covariates.
• Table S5. Effect of information, conditional on distance between information and priors, on vote choice, and turnout.
• Table S6. Deviations from MPAP and study PAPs in the meta-analysis.
• Table S7. Differential attrition.
• Table S8. Manipulation check: Effect of treatment on correct recollection, pooling good and bad news (unregistered analysis).
• Table S9. Manipulation check: Absolute difference between posterior and prior beliefs for pooled good and bad news (unregistered analysis).
• Table S10. Effect of information on perception of importance of politician effort and honesty.
• Table S11. Effect of information and source credibility on evaluation of politician effort and honesty (unregistered analysis).
• Table S12. Relationship between evaluation of politician effort and honesty with vote choice (unregistered analysis).
• Table S13. Effect of bad news on politician backlash.
• Table S14. Additional hypotheses and results.
• Table S15. Effect of moderators on incumbent vote choice.
• Table S16. Effect of information and context heterogeneity on incumbent vote choice.
• Table S17. Effect of information and electoral competition on vote choice.
• Table S18. Effect of information and intervention-specific heterogeneity on vote choice.
• Table S19. Interaction analysis: Effect of good news on incumbent vote choice.
• Table S20. Interaction analysis: Effect of bad news on incumbent vote choice.
• Table S21. Private versus public information: Effect of good news on incumbent vote choice.
• Table S22. Private versus public information: Effect of bad news on incumbent vote choice.
• Fig. S1. Benin—Graphical representation of provided information.
• Fig. S2. Brazil—Flyers distributed to voters.
• Fig. S3. Burkina Faso—Flashcard illustrations of municipal performance indicators.
• Fig. S4. Mexico—Example of benchmarked leaflet in Ecatepec de Morelos, México.
• Fig. S5. Uganda 1—Candidate answering questions during a recording session and candidate as seen in video.
• Fig. S6. Power analysis of minimal detectable effects, computed using Monte Carlo simulation.
• Fig. S7. Bayesian meta-analysis: Vote choice.
• Fig. S8. Bayesian meta-analysis: Turnout.

Download PDF