% Options for packages loaded elsewhere
\PassOptionsToPackage{unicode}{hyperref}
\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
\PassOptionsToPackage{dvipsnames,svgnames,x11names}{xcolor}
%
\documentclass[
  11pt,
]{article}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb}
\usepackage{iftex}
\ifPDFTeX
  \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
  \usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
  \usepackage{textcomp} % provide euro and other symbols
\else % if luatex or xetex
  \usepackage{unicode-math} % this also loads fontspec
  \defaultfontfeatures{Scale=MatchLowercase}
  \defaultfontfeatures[\rmfamily]{Ligatures=TeX,Scale=1}
\fi
\usepackage{lmodern}
\ifPDFTeX\else
  % xetex/luatex font selection
\fi
% Use upquote if available, for straight quotes in verbatim environments
\IfFileExists{upquote.sty}{\usepackage{upquote}}{}
\IfFileExists{microtype.sty}{% use microtype if available
  \usepackage[]{microtype}
  \UseMicrotypeSet[protrusion]{basicmath} % disable protrusion for tt fonts
}{}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{longtable,booktabs,array}
\usepackage{calc} % for calculating minipage widths
% Correct order of tables after \paragraph or \subparagraph
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\longtable{\par}{\if@noskipsec\mbox{}\fi\par}{}{}
\makeatother
% Allow footnotes in longtable head/foot
\IfFileExists{footnotehyper.sty}{\usepackage{footnotehyper}}{\usepackage{footnote}}
\makesavenoteenv{longtable}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\makeatletter
\def\maxwidth{\ifdim\Gin@nat@width>\linewidth\linewidth\else\Gin@nat@width\fi}
\def\maxheight{\ifdim\Gin@nat@height>\textheight\textheight\else\Gin@nat@height\fi}
\makeatother
% Scale images if necessary, so that they will not overflow the page
% margins by default, and it is still possible to overwrite the defaults
% using explicit options in \includegraphics[width, height, ...]{}
\setkeys{Gin}{width=\maxwidth,height=\maxheight,keepaspectratio}
% Set default figure placement to htbp
\makeatletter
\def\fps@figure{htbp}
\makeatother
\setlength{\emergencystretch}{3em} % prevent overfull lines
\providecommand{\tightlist}{%
  \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}
\setcounter{secnumdepth}{5}
\usepackage{fullpage}  
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{sectsty}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\allsectionsfont{\singlespacing}
\usepackage{siunitx}
\newcolumntype{d}{S[input-symbols = ()]}

\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{array}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{float}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{pdflscape}
\usepackage{tabu}
\usepackage{threeparttable}
\usepackage{threeparttablex}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{makecell}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{siunitx}

  \newcolumntype{d}{S[
    input-open-uncertainty=,
    input-close-uncertainty=,
    parse-numbers = false,
    table-align-text-pre=false,
    table-align-text-post=false
  ]}
  
\ifLuaTeX
  \usepackage{selnolig}  % disable illegal ligatures
\fi
\usepackage{bookmark}
\IfFileExists{xurl.sty}{\usepackage{xurl}}{} % add URL line breaks if available
\urlstyle{same}
\hypersetup{
  pdftitle={Supporting Information for ``Can Rising Powers Reassure? Shifting Power, Foreign Economic Policy, and Perceptions of Revisionist Intent''},
  colorlinks=true,
  linkcolor={Blue},
  filecolor={Maroon},
  citecolor={Blue},
  urlcolor={Blue},
  pdfcreator={LaTeX via pandoc}}

\title{Supporting Information for ``Can Rising Powers Reassure? Shifting Power, Foreign Economic Policy, and Perceptions of Revisionist Intent''}
\author{}
\date{\vspace{-2.5em}October 2024\\}

\begin{document}
\maketitle

\clearpage

\section{About the elite survey}\label{about-the-elite-survey}

We included our experiment on a longer survey of U.S. foreign policy elites. Our partners gathered the names and contact information for 12,557 individuals working at think tanks or non-governmental organizations in the United States working on issues related to U.S. foreign policy. 1,276 individuals answered at least one question on the survey and 813 individuals completed our experiment.

To be included in the sample, respondents had to be employed at one of 174 non-governmental organizations or 75 of the most influential U.S.-based IR think tanks tracked by the 2019 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report. Examples of think tanks included: Center for Strategic and International Studies, Heritage Foundation, Center for American Progress, German Marshall Fund of the US, and Center For New American Security. Examples of NGOs included: National Endowment for Democracy, Oxfam-America, The Carter Center, World Wildlife Fund. At orgnanizations that work on more than issues of relevance to U.S. foreign policy, only those employees are listed as working on foreign policy issues were surveyed.

The elite experiment vignette differed in the following minor ways from that fielded on the public. First, we assumed a working knowledge of global governance institutions and so did not spell out what the IMF and World Bank actually do. Second, we did not remind respondents of the location of the recipient counties (Dominican Republic and Haiti). Third, the introduction to the experiment read somewhat differently. The elites saw, ``Below we will describe the behavior of a hypothetical country. Please consider how you might feel about the country's motives and how the United States might be affected by this country's behavior.'' The public saw, ``Below we will describe a country and give you some information about its foreign policy choices. Please consider how you might feel about the county's motives and its ability to sway the future foreign policy choices of countries outside the United States.''

\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption{\label{tab:unnamed-chunk-2}Self-reported organization type among think tank and NGO respondents}
\centering
\begin{tabular}[t]{lrl}
\toprule
Org. type & N & \%\\
\midrule
A non-governmental organization & 307 & 37.8\%\\
A think tank & 275 & 33.8\%\\
Both & 157 & 19.3\%\\
No response & 10 & 1.2\%\\
Other & 64 & 7.9\%\\
\addlinespace
Total & 813 & -\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption{\label{tab:unnamed-chunk-2}Rank distribution among think tank and NGO respondents}
\centering
\begin{tabular}[t]{lrl}
\toprule
Rank & N & \%\\
\midrule
Junior & 25 & 3.1\%\\
Associate & 55 & 6.8\%\\
Mid-level & 188 & 23.1\%\\
Senior & 460 & 56.6\%\\
Board Member & 10 & 1.2\%\\
\addlinespace
Other & 63 & 7.7\%\\
No response & 12 & 1.5\%\\
Total & 813 & -\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

All NGOs that undertake research, advocacy, or implementation work that ``crosses borders'' and are potentially influenced or affected by US foreign policy decisions were included in the final list.

\section{Demographics}\label{demographics}

\subsection*{Public demographics}\label{public-demographics}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Public demographics}

\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption{\label{tab:unnamed-chunk-3}Distribution of demographics in public sample}
\centering
\fontsize{7}{9}\selectfont
\begin{tabular}[t]{lll}
\toprule
Label & DLABSS & CCES Benchmark (2020)\\
\midrule
\addlinespace[0.3em]
\multicolumn{3}{l}{\textbf{Gender}}\\
\hspace{1em}Male & 321 (58.58\%) & 48.5\%\\
\hspace{1em}Female & 164 (29.93\%) & 51.5\%\\
\hspace{1em}Other/Prefer not to say & 63 (11.50\%) & 0\%\\
\addlinespace[0.3em]
\multicolumn{3}{l}{\textbf{Income}}\\
\hspace{1em}Less than \$30,000 & 100 (18.25\%) & 26.1\%\\
\hspace{1em}Between \$30,000 and \$59,999 & 103 (18.80\%) & 25.41\%\\
\hspace{1em}Between \$60,000 and \$120,000 & 169 (30.84\%) & 25.67\%\\
\hspace{1em}More than \$120,000 & 90 (16.42\%) & 11.74\%\\
\hspace{1em}Prefer not to say & 86 (15.69\%) & 11.08\%\\
\addlinespace[0.3em]
\multicolumn{3}{l}{\textbf{Race}}\\
\hspace{1em}Asian & 5 (0.91\%) & 4.29\%\\
\hspace{1em}Black & 6 (1.09\%) & 12.86\%\\
\hspace{1em}Hispanic & 7 (1.28\%) & 9.86\%\\
\hspace{1em}Indigenous & 6 (1.09\%) & 0.69\%\\
\hspace{1em}White & 452 (82.48\%) & 68.76\%\\
\hspace{1em}Other & 20 (3.65\%) & 3.54\%\\
\hspace{1em}Prefer not to say & 52 (9.49\%) & 0\%\\
\addlinespace[0.3em]
\multicolumn{3}{l}{\textbf{Age}}\\
\hspace{1em}18--29 & 25 (4.56\%) & 21.04\%\\
\hspace{1em}30--39 & 52 (9.49\%) & 15.93\%\\
\hspace{1em}40--49 & 47 (8.58\%) & 13.73\%\\
\hspace{1em}50--59 & 103 (18.80\%) & 17.56\%\\
\hspace{1em}60--69 & 132 (24.09\%) & 17.94\%\\
\hspace{1em}70+ & 132 (24.09\%) & 13.8\%\\
\hspace{1em}Prefer not to say & 57 (10.40\%) & 0\%\\
\addlinespace[0.3em]
\multicolumn{3}{l}{\textbf{Party ID}}\\
\hspace{1em}Democrat & 139 (25.36\%) & 42.2\%\\
\hspace{1em}Independent/Other & 169 (30.84\%) & 19.85\%\\
\hspace{1em}Republican & 162 (29.56\%) & 37.95\%\\
\hspace{1em}Prefer not to say & 78 (14.23\%) & 0\%\\
\addlinespace[0.3em]
\multicolumn{3}{l}{\textbf{Region}}\\
\hspace{1em}Northeast & 102 (18.61\%) & 18\%\\
\hspace{1em}Midwest & 97 (17.70\%) & 21.62\%\\
\hspace{1em}South & 160 (29.20\%) & 39.28\%\\
\hspace{1em}West & 134 (24.45\%) & 21.1\%\\
\hspace{1em}No response & 55 (10.04\%) & 0\%\\
\addlinespace[0.3em]
\multicolumn{3}{l}{\textbf{Education}}\\
\hspace{1em}No high school diploma & 2 (0.36\%) & 8.85\%\\
\hspace{1em}High school graduate & 86 (15.69\%) & 28.56\%\\
\hspace{1em}Some college & 0 (0.00\%) & 21.36\%\\
\hspace{1em}2 year degree & 60 (10.95\%) & 10.19\%\\
\hspace{1em}4 year degree & 167 (30.47\%) & 19.67\%\\
\hspace{1em}Post-grad & 182 (33.21\%) & 11.37\%\\
\hspace{1em}Prefer not to say & 51 (9.31\%) & 0\%\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\clearpage

\subsection*{Think Tank/NGO demographics}\label{think-tankngo-demographics}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{Think Tank/NGO demographics}

\footnotesize

\begin{longtable}[]{@{}ll@{}}
\caption{\label{tab:unnamed-chunk-4}Demographic distribution for elite sample.}\tabularnewline
\toprule\noalign{}
& Think Tank/NGO Sample (N=813) \\
\midrule\noalign{}
\endfirsthead
\toprule\noalign{}
& Think Tank/NGO Sample (N=813) \\
\midrule\noalign{}
\endhead
\bottomrule\noalign{}
\endlastfoot
\textbf{Gender} & ~~ \\
~~ Male & 426 (52.40\%) \\
~~ Female & 251 (30.87\%) \\
~~ Prefer not to say & 136 (16.73\%) \\
\textbf{Race} & ~~ \\
~~ Asian & 42 (5.17\%) \\
~~ Black & 43 (5.29\%) \\
~~ Hispanic & 0 (0.00\%) \\
~~ Indigenous & 1 (0.12\%) \\
~~ White & 447 (54.98\%) \\
~~ Other & 107 (13.16\%) \\
~~ Prefer not to say & 173 (21.28\%) \\
\textbf{Age} & ~~ \\
~~ 18--29 & 46 (5.66\%) \\
~~ 30--39 & 121 (14.88\%) \\
~~ 40--49 & 148 (18.20\%) \\
~~ 50--59 & 159 (19.56\%) \\
~~ 60--69 & 111 (13.65\%) \\
~~ 70+ & 62 (7.63\%) \\
~~ Prefer not to say & 166 (20.42\%) \\
\textbf{Political Party} & ~~ \\
~~ Democratic & 311 (38.25\%) \\
~~ Independent/Other & 185 (22.76\%) \\
~~ Republican & 44 (5.41\%) \\
~~ Prefer not to say & 273 (33.58\%) \\
\textbf{Education} & ~~ \\
~~ B.A. or B.S. & 64/473 (13.53\%) \\
~~ Master's & 0/473 (0.00\%) \\
~~ M.D. & 10/473 (2.11\%) \\
~~ J.D. & 29/473 (6.13\%) \\
~~ Ph.D. & 236/473 (49.89\%) \\
~~ Other & 22/473 (4.65\%) \\
~~ Prefer not to say & 112/473 (23.68\%) \\
\end{longtable}

\normalsize

\section{Results tables}\label{results-tables}

Models are estimated via OLS. The original scales were seven point Likert-style ``strongly agree'' to ``strongly disagree'' scales with a ``neither agree nor disagree option'' in the middle. For the binary models, we dichotomize the scale so that a 100 represents any level agreement while a 0 represents neither or any level of disagreement.

\subsection{Results tables for models presented in main text}\label{results-tables-for-models-presented-in-main-text}

In the text, we first discuss the main effect of each treatment. We then discuss the results of models in which we interact the treatments with each other in order to produced disaggregated estimates.

\begin{table}[H]
\centering\centering
\caption{\label{tab:unnamed-chunk-6}Results for think tank sample presented in text}
\centering
\fontsize{6}{8}\selectfont
\begin{tabular}[t]{lccccc}
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{ } & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Nat sec. threat} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Change rules} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{More influence} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Public influence} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Elite influence} \\
\cmidrule(l{3pt}r{3pt}){2-2} \cmidrule(l{3pt}r{3pt}){3-3} \cmidrule(l{3pt}r{3pt}){4-4} \cmidrule(l{3pt}r{3pt}){5-5} \cmidrule(l{3pt}r{3pt}){6-6}
  & - & -  & -   & -    & -    \\
\midrule
(Intercept) & \num{57.30}*** & \num{75.56}*** & \num{38.64}*** & \num{70.45}*** & \num{90.00}***\\
 & (\num{5.27}) & (\num{4.56}) & (\num{5.22}) & (\num{4.89}) & (\num{3.18})\\
SQ Rhetoric & \num{1.11} & \num{-10.56} & \num{-2.99} & \num{-5.11} & \num{-0.89}\\
 & (\num{7.22}) & (\num{6.61}) & (\num{7.08}) & (\num{6.82}) & (\num{4.45})\\
SQ Behavior & \num{-21.02}** & \num{-24.68}*** & \num{22.97}** & \num{9.19} & \num{-0.62}\\
 & (\num{6.96}) & (\num{6.55}) & (\num{6.97}) & (\num{6.20}) & (\num{4.31})\\
Dominican Republic & \num{-3.46} & \num{-3.44} & \num{0.79} & \num{-2.19} & \num{-6.35}\\
 & (\num{7.21}) & (\num{6.35}) & (\num{7.10}) & (\num{6.71}) & (\num{4.84})\\
SQ Rhet.*SQ Behav. & \num{-13.15} & \num{-7.32} & \num{6.03} & \num{11.46} & \num{-4.65}\\
 & (\num{9.56}) & (\num{9.39}) & (\num{9.74}) & (\num{8.56}) & (\num{6.49})\\
SQ Rhet.*Dom. Rep. & \num{0.18} & \num{8.53} & \num{5.08} & \num{6.93} & \num{6.02}\\
 & (\num{9.98}) & (\num{9.11}) & (\num{9.82}) & (\num{9.35}) & (\num{6.52})\\
SQ Behav.*Dom. Rep. & \num{4.67} & \num{12.18} & \num{4.91} & \num{1.39} & \num{9.27}\\
 & (\num{9.76}) & (\num{9.26}) & (\num{9.65}) & (\num{8.70}) & (\num{6.23})\\
SQ Rhet.*SQ Behav.*Dom. Rep. & \num{-5.86} & \num{-19.84} & \num{-17.18} & \num{-13.01} & \num{-8.17}\\
 & (\num{13.39}) & (\num{13.20}) & (\num{13.77}) & (\num{12.19}) & (\num{9.28})\\
\midrule
Num.Obs. & \num{808} & \num{811} & \num{805} & \num{808} & \num{809}\\
R2 & \num{0.082} & \num{0.104} & \num{0.062} & \num{0.024} & \num{0.008}\\
\bottomrule
\multicolumn{6}{l}{\rule{0pt}{1em}** p $<$ 0.05, *** p $<$ 0.001}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[H]
\centering\centering
\caption{\label{tab:unnamed-chunk-8}Results tables for public sample presented in text}
\centering
\fontsize{7}{9}\selectfont
\begin{tabular}[t]{lcccc}
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{ } & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Nat sec. threat} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Change rules} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{More influence} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Elite influence} \\
\cmidrule(l{3pt}r{3pt}){2-2} \cmidrule(l{3pt}r{3pt}){3-3} \cmidrule(l{3pt}r{3pt}){4-4} \cmidrule(l{3pt}r{3pt}){5-5}
  & - & -  & -   & -   \\
\midrule
(Intercept) & \num{41.27}*** & \num{61.29}*** & \num{24.59}*** & \num{90.32}***\\
 & (\num{6.25}) & (\num{6.24}) & (\num{5.56}) & (\num{3.79})\\
SQ Rhetoric & \num{-2.56} & \num{-12.90} & \num{-3.62} & \num{-6.45}\\
 & (\num{8.83}) & (\num{8.94}) & (\num{7.62}) & (\num{6.04})\\
SQ Behavior & \num{-7.94} & \num{-20.02}** & \num{23.03}** & \num{-6.20}\\
 & (\num{8.66}) & (\num{8.83}) & (\num{8.43}) & (\num{5.99})\\
Dominican Republic & \num{7.34} & \num{7.63} & \num{3.79} & \num{-5.19}\\
 & (\num{8.62}) & (\num{8.26}) & (\num{7.66}) & (\num{5.63})\\
SQ Rhet.*SQ Behav. & \num{-9.25} & \num{-0.52} & \num{-7.29} & \num{7.13}\\
 & (\num{11.64}) & (\num{12.03}) & (\num{11.32}) & (\num{8.63})\\
SQ Rhet.*Dom. Rep. & \num{-2.30} & \num{-12.27} & \num{3.37} & \num{2.57}\\
 & (\num{12.34}) & (\num{12.18}) & (\num{10.86}) & (\num{8.83})\\
SQ Behav.*Dom. Rep. & \num{-6.83} & \num{0.33} & \num{-12.95} & \num{10.29}\\
 & (\num{12.05}) & (\num{12.10}) & (\num{11.66}) & (\num{8.26})\\
SQ Rhet.*SQ Behav.*Dom. Rep. & \num{-3.86} & \num{5.03} & \num{8.76} & \num{2.76}\\
 & (\num{16.32}) & (\num{16.88}) & (\num{16.24}) & (\num{11.76})\\
\midrule
Num.Obs. & \num{531} & \num{532} & \num{531} & \num{532}\\
R2 & \num{0.049} & \num{0.077} & \num{0.030} & \num{0.015}\\
\bottomrule
\multicolumn{5}{l}{\rule{0pt}{1em}** p $<$ 0.05, *** p $<$ 0.001}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\newpage

\subsection{Results with pre-treatment controls}\label{results-with-pre-treatment-controls}

In these models, we also control for potentially relevant pre-treatment demographic characteristics. Gender is a binary variable that takes on a value of 0 if the respondent is male and 1 if the respondent is female. Ideology is a three point scale from 1 (conservative) to 3 (liberal) with ``middle of the road'' in between. Education is on an integer scale ranging from 1 (no high school) to 5 (advanced degree). Age is recorded in years since birth.

\begin{table}[H]
\centering\centering
\caption{\label{tab:unnamed-chunk-10}Results for think tank sample, binary DVs}
\centering
\fontsize{7}{9}\selectfont
\begin{tabular}[t]{lccccc}
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{ } & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Nat sec. threat} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Change rules} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{More influence} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Public influence} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Elite influence} \\
\cmidrule(l{3pt}r{3pt}){2-2} \cmidrule(l{3pt}r{3pt}){3-3} \cmidrule(l{3pt}r{3pt}){4-4} \cmidrule(l{3pt}r{3pt}){5-5} \cmidrule(l{3pt}r{3pt}){6-6}
  & w/ ctrls & w/ ctrls  & w/ ctrls   & w/ ctrls    & w/ ctrls    \\
\midrule
(Intercept) & \num{37.10} & \num{60.78} & \num{13.05} & \num{35.21} & \num{80.62}***\\
 & (\num{34.23}) & (\num{32.45}) & (\num{33.72}) & (\num{30.95}) & (\num{23.47})\\
SQ Rhetoric & \num{-0.10} & \num{-15.45}** & \num{0.78} & \num{-6.35} & \num{0.42}\\
 & (\num{8.50}) & (\num{7.71}) & (\num{8.19}) & (\num{7.91}) & (\num{5.33})\\
SQ Behavior & \num{-13.09} & \num{-25.05}*** & \num{20.64}** & \num{8.46} & \num{1.73}\\
 & (\num{8.18}) & (\num{7.56}) & (\num{8.05}) & (\num{7.16}) & (\num{5.17})\\
Dominican Republic & \num{4.22} & \num{-0.07} & \num{0.97} & \num{-1.74} & \num{-3.33}\\
 & (\num{8.34}) & (\num{7.08}) & (\num{8.53}) & (\num{7.85}) & (\num{5.51})\\
Age & \num{0.33}** & \num{0.20} & \num{0.00} & \num{0.34}** & \num{0.06}\\
 & (\num{0.15}) & (\num{0.15}) & (\num{0.15}) & (\num{0.12}) & (\num{0.10})\\
Female & \num{-4.70} & \num{-8.64}** & \num{-12.07}** & \num{-2.13} & \num{-6.96}**\\
 & (\num{4.17}) & (\num{4.24}) & (\num{4.25}) & (\num{3.75}) & (\num{3.03})\\
Ideology (3-pt, L to R) & \num{8.44}** & \num{2.51} & \num{-6.10}** & \num{-1.95} & \num{-4.27}**\\
 & (\num{3.00}) & (\num{2.89}) & (\num{3.04}) & (\num{2.66}) & (\num{2.01})\\
Education & \num{-1.93} & \num{1.18} & \num{7.86} & \num{4.61} & \num{2.79}\\
 & (\num{6.71}) & (\num{6.50}) & (\num{6.61}) & (\num{6.00}) & (\num{4.82})\\
SQ Rhet.*SQ Behav. & \num{-22.34}** & \num{-5.99} & \num{10.93} & \num{16.94} & \num{-3.84}\\
 & (\num{11.02}) & (\num{10.79}) & (\num{11.14}) & (\num{9.64}) & (\num{7.51})\\
SQ Rhet.*Dom. Rep. & \num{-1.64} & \num{11.52} & \num{0.16} & \num{8.22} & \num{6.39}\\
 & (\num{11.42}) & (\num{10.25}) & (\num{11.34}) & (\num{10.73}) & (\num{7.28})\\
SQ Behav.*Dom. Rep. & \num{-7.79} & \num{6.78} & \num{11.77} & \num{3.58} & \num{7.29}\\
 & (\num{11.18}) & (\num{10.44}) & (\num{11.17}) & (\num{9.95}) & (\num{6.98})\\
SQ Rhet.*SQ Behav.*Dom. Rep. & \num{8.04} & \num{-14.39} & \num{-23.36} & \num{-12.18} & \num{-8.98}\\
 & (\num{15.32}) & (\num{15.09}) & (\num{15.80}) & (\num{13.58}) & (\num{10.30})\\
\midrule
Num.Obs. & \num{611} & \num{612} & \num{609} & \num{612} & \num{611}\\
R2 & \num{0.111} & \num{0.128} & \num{0.089} & \num{0.054} & \num{0.024}\\
\bottomrule
\multicolumn{6}{l}{\rule{0pt}{1em}** p $<$ 0.05, *** p $<$ 0.001}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[H]
\centering\centering
\caption{\label{tab:unnamed-chunk-12}Results for think tank, original scale DVs}
\centering
\fontsize{7}{9}\selectfont
\begin{tabular}[t]{lccccc}
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{ } & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Nat sec. threat} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Change rules} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{More influence} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Public influence} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Elite influence} \\
\cmidrule(l{3pt}r{3pt}){2-2} \cmidrule(l{3pt}r{3pt}){3-3} \cmidrule(l{3pt}r{3pt}){4-4} \cmidrule(l{3pt}r{3pt}){5-5} \cmidrule(l{3pt}r{3pt}){6-6}
  & w/ ctrls & w/ ctrls  & w/ ctrls   & w/ ctrls    & w/ ctrls    \\
\midrule
(Intercept) & \num{4.01}*** & \num{5.97}*** & \num{2.72}** & \num{3.80}*** & \num{5.43}***\\
 & (\num{0.89}) & (\num{0.91}) & (\num{0.88}) & (\num{0.84}) & (\num{0.76})\\
SQ Rhetoric & \num{-0.06} & \num{-0.53}** & \num{0.06} & \num{-0.15} & \num{-0.08}\\
 & (\num{0.22}) & (\num{0.22}) & (\num{0.22}) & (\num{0.21}) & (\num{0.19})\\
SQ Behavior & \num{-0.52}** & \num{-0.82}*** & \num{0.79}*** & \num{0.47}** & \num{-0.14}\\
 & (\num{0.21}) & (\num{0.22}) & (\num{0.21}) & (\num{0.20}) & (\num{0.18})\\
Dominican Republic & \num{0.04} & \num{-0.23} & \num{0.14} & \num{-0.05} & \num{-0.17}\\
 & (\num{0.22}) & (\num{0.23}) & (\num{0.22}) & (\num{0.21}) & (\num{0.19})\\
Age & \num{0.01}** & \num{0.01}** & \num{0.00} & \num{0.01} & \num{0.00}\\
 & (\num{0.00}) & (\num{0.00}) & (\num{0.00}) & (\num{0.00}) & (\num{0.00})\\
Female & \num{-0.01} & \num{-0.13} & \num{-0.21} & \num{-0.08} & \num{-0.14}\\
 & (\num{0.11}) & (\num{0.12}) & (\num{0.11}) & (\num{0.11}) & (\num{0.10})\\
Ideology (3-pt, L to R) & \num{0.28}*** & \num{0.09} & \num{-0.20}** & \num{-0.02} & \num{-0.11}\\
 & (\num{0.08}) & (\num{0.08}) & (\num{0.08}) & (\num{0.08}) & (\num{0.07})\\
Education & \num{-0.03} & \num{-0.17} & \num{0.29} & \num{0.20} & \num{0.12}\\
 & (\num{0.18}) & (\num{0.18}) & (\num{0.17}) & (\num{0.17}) & (\num{0.15})\\
SQ Rhet.*SQ Behav. & \num{-0.47} & \num{0.02} & \num{0.14} & \num{0.35} & \num{0.02}\\
 & (\num{0.30}) & (\num{0.30}) & (\num{0.30}) & (\num{0.28}) & (\num{0.26})\\
SQ Rhet.*Dom. Rep. & \num{-0.06} & \num{0.27} & \num{-0.22} & \num{0.08} & \num{0.29}\\
 & (\num{0.30}) & (\num{0.30}) & (\num{0.29}) & (\num{0.28}) & (\num{0.25})\\
SQ Behav.*Dom. Rep. & \num{-0.07} & \num{0.25} & \num{0.09} & \num{0.05} & \num{0.36}\\
 & (\num{0.29}) & (\num{0.30}) & (\num{0.29}) & (\num{0.28}) & (\num{0.25})\\
SQ Rhet.*SQ Behav.*Dom. Rep. & \num{0.01} & \num{-0.48} & \num{-0.09} & \num{-0.21} & \num{-0.49}\\
 & (\num{0.42}) & (\num{0.43}) & (\num{0.41}) & (\num{0.39}) & (\num{0.36})\\
\midrule
Num.Obs. & \num{611} & \num{612} & \num{609} & \num{612} & \num{611}\\
R2 & \num{0.129} & \num{0.125} & \num{0.122} & \num{0.074} & \num{0.016}\\
\bottomrule
\multicolumn{6}{l}{\rule{0pt}{1em}** p $<$ 0.05, *** p $<$ 0.001}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[H]
\centering\centering
\caption{\label{tab:unnamed-chunk-14}Results tables for public, binary DVs}
\centering
\fontsize{7}{9}\selectfont
\begin{tabular}[t]{lcccc}
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{ } & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Nat sec. threat} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Change rules} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{More influence} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Elite influence} \\
\cmidrule(l{3pt}r{3pt}){2-2} \cmidrule(l{3pt}r{3pt}){3-3} \cmidrule(l{3pt}r{3pt}){4-4} \cmidrule(l{3pt}r{3pt}){5-5}
  & w/ ctrls & w/ ctrls  & w/ ctrls   & w/ ctrls   \\
\midrule
(Intercept) & \num{15.22} & \num{41.65}** & \num{61.72}*** & \num{90.54}***\\
 & (\num{13.29}) & (\num{14.18}) & (\num{13.57}) & (\num{10.42})\\
SQ Rhetoric & \num{-0.73} & \num{-16.42} & \num{-8.83} & \num{-4.05}\\
 & (\num{9.34}) & (\num{9.14}) & (\num{8.42}) & (\num{6.49})\\
SQ Behavior & \num{-5.85} & \num{-22.95}** & \num{16.24} & \num{-5.30}\\
 & (\num{9.04}) & (\num{9.13}) & (\num{8.87}) & (\num{6.66})\\
Dominican Republic & \num{13.34} & \num{9.43} & \num{-4.46} & \num{-1.67}\\
 & (\num{9.07}) & (\num{8.44}) & (\num{8.13}) & (\num{6.13})\\
Age & \num{0.23} & \num{0.16} & \num{-0.34}** & \num{-0.05}\\
 & (\num{0.15}) & (\num{0.15}) & (\num{0.15}) & (\num{0.11})\\
Female & \num{-7.10} & \num{-15.53}** & \num{6.55} & \num{-11.12}**\\
 & (\num{4.70}) & (\num{4.79}) & (\num{4.70}) & (\num{3.86})\\
Ideology (3-pt, L to R) & \num{7.70}** & \num{6.58}** & \num{-11.04}*** & \num{-2.32}\\
 & (\num{2.60}) & (\num{2.57}) & (\num{2.54}) & (\num{2.04})\\
Education & \num{-0.50} & \num{1.11} & \num{2.84} & \num{2.44}\\
 & (\num{2.08}) & (\num{2.00}) & (\num{1.91}) & (\num{1.61})\\
SQ Rhet.*SQ Behav. & \num{-11.51} & \num{2.39} & \num{0.87} & \num{4.70}\\
 & (\num{12.30}) & (\num{12.44}) & (\num{11.91}) & (\num{9.27})\\
SQ Rhet.*Dom. Rep. & \num{-9.81} & \num{-8.29} & \num{7.58} & \num{-2.77}\\
 & (\num{12.97}) & (\num{12.40}) & (\num{11.58}) & (\num{9.42})\\
SQ Behav.*Dom. Rep. & \num{-15.25} & \num{-0.45} & \num{-10.16} & \num{6.28}\\
 & (\num{12.62}) & (\num{12.63}) & (\num{12.11}) & (\num{9.20})\\
SQ Rhet.*SQ Behav.*Dom. Rep. & \num{5.28} & \num{-0.15} & \num{2.22} & \num{10.46}\\
 & (\num{17.29}) & (\num{17.65}) & (\num{16.97}) & (\num{12.71})\\
\midrule
Num.Obs. & \num{460} & \num{461} & \num{460} & \num{461}\\
R2 & \num{0.094} & \num{0.145} & \num{0.109} & \num{0.046}\\
\bottomrule
\multicolumn{5}{l}{\rule{0pt}{1em}** p $<$ 0.05, *** p $<$ 0.001}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[H]
\centering\centering
\caption{\label{tab:unnamed-chunk-16}Results for public, orig. scale}
\centering
\fontsize{7}{9}\selectfont
\begin{tabular}[t]{lcccc}
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{ } & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Nat sec. threat} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Change rules} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{More influence} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Elite influence} \\
\cmidrule(l{3pt}r{3pt}){2-2} \cmidrule(l{3pt}r{3pt}){3-3} \cmidrule(l{3pt}r{3pt}){4-4} \cmidrule(l{3pt}r{3pt}){5-5}
  & w/ ctrls & w/ ctrls  & w/ ctrls   & w/ ctrls   \\
\midrule
(Intercept) & \num{2.95}*** & \num{4.23}*** & \num{4.42}*** & \num{5.95}***\\
 & (\num{0.49}) & (\num{0.37}) & (\num{0.44}) & (\num{0.34})\\
SQ Rhetoric & \num{0.04} & \num{-0.40} & \num{0.07} & \num{-0.19}\\
 & (\num{0.28}) & (\num{0.24}) & (\num{0.27}) & (\num{0.21})\\
SQ Behavior & \num{-0.12} & \num{-0.45} & \num{0.63}** & \num{-0.41}\\
 & (\num{0.29}) & (\num{0.23}) & (\num{0.28}) & (\num{0.25})\\
Dominican Republic & \num{0.42} & \num{0.36} & \num{0.12} & \num{0.13}\\
 & (\num{0.27}) & (\num{0.22}) & (\num{0.28}) & (\num{0.21})\\
Age & \num{0.02}** & \num{0.01} & \num{-0.01}** & \num{0.00}\\
 & (\num{0.01}) & (\num{0.00}) & (\num{0.00}) & (\num{0.00})\\
Female & \num{-0.33}** & \num{-0.44}*** & \num{0.28} & \num{-0.41}**\\
 & (\num{0.16}) & (\num{0.13}) & (\num{0.15}) & (\num{0.13})\\
Ideology (3-pt, L to R) & \num{0.34}*** & \num{0.33}*** & \num{-0.44}*** & \num{-0.07}\\
 & (\num{0.09}) & (\num{0.07}) & (\num{0.08}) & (\num{0.07})\\
Education & \num{-0.09} & \num{-0.06} & \num{0.12}** & \num{0.06}\\
 & (\num{0.07}) & (\num{0.05}) & (\num{0.06}) & (\num{0.05})\\
SQ Rhet.*SQ Behav. & \num{-0.79} & \num{-0.45} & \num{0.02} & \num{0.10}\\
 & (\num{0.40}) & (\num{0.33}) & (\num{0.36}) & (\num{0.32})\\
SQ Rhet.*Dom. Rep. & \num{-0.34} & \num{-0.27} & \num{-0.28} & \num{-0.30}\\
 & (\num{0.40}) & (\num{0.33}) & (\num{0.39}) & (\num{0.32})\\
SQ Behav.*Dom. Rep. & \num{-0.34} & \num{-0.05} & \num{-0.36} & \num{0.04}\\
 & (\num{0.41}) & (\num{0.33}) & (\num{0.39}) & (\num{0.34})\\
SQ Rhet.*SQ Behav.*Dom. Rep. & \num{0.46} & \num{0.24} & \num{0.43} & \num{0.41}\\
 & (\num{0.58}) & (\num{0.49}) & (\num{0.53}) & (\num{0.45})\\
\midrule
Num.Obs. & \num{460} & \num{461} & \num{460} & \num{461}\\
R2 & \num{0.141} & \num{0.219} & \num{0.160} & \num{0.058}\\
\bottomrule
\multicolumn{5}{l}{\rule{0pt}{1em}** p $<$ 0.05, *** p $<$ 0.001}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\section{Balance tests}\label{balance-tests}

In the main text, we report estimates based on regression models that include only our treatment indicators (and their interaction) as the independent variables. To check for balance, we estimate models that predict potentially relevant pre-treatment characteristics (age, gender, ideology, and education level) as a function of treatment. The results show that balance across treatment conditions was quite good. Only in the case of gender in the think tank sample do we see evidence of a potentially important imbalance. Women are over represented somewhat in the SQ Rhetoric/Not SQ Behavior treatment condition. But, as the results above show, controlling for gender does not alter any of the conclusions that we draw about our treatments. Ideology is a three point scale from 1 (conservative) to 3 (liberal) with ``middle of the road'' in between. Education is on an integer scale ranging from 1 (no high school) to 5 (advanced degree). Age is recorded in years since birth.

\begin{table}[H]
\centering\centering
\caption{\label{tab:unnamed-chunk-17}Predicting demographic features as a function of treatment assignment (Think Tank Sample).}
\centering
\fontsize{7}{9}\selectfont
\begin{tabular}[t]{lcccc}
\toprule
  & Age & Ideology & Education & Female\\
\midrule
(Intercept) & \num{49.82}*** & \num{1.50}*** & \num{4.94}*** & \num{0.29}***\\
 & (\num{1.07}) & (\num{0.05}) & (\num{0.02}) & (\num{0.04})\\
SQ Rhetoric & \num{-0.57} & \num{-0.10} & \num{-0.05} & \num{0.11}**\\
 & (\num{1.52}) & (\num{0.07}) & (\num{0.03}) & (\num{0.05})\\
SQ Behavior & \num{-0.90} & \num{0.01} & \num{-0.03} & \num{0.08}\\
 & (\num{1.53}) & (\num{0.07}) & (\num{0.03}) & (\num{0.05})\\
SQ Rhet.*SQ Behav. & \num{1.67} & \num{0.13} & \num{0.04} & \num{-0.06}\\
 & (\num{2.17}) & (\num{0.10}) & (\num{0.04}) & (\num{0.07})\\
\midrule
Num.Obs. & \num{650} & \num{691} & \num{679} & \num{679}\\
R2 & \num{0.001} & \num{0.007} & \num{0.005} & \num{0.011}\\
\bottomrule
\multicolumn{5}{l}{\rule{0pt}{1em}** p $<$ 0.05, *** p $<$ 0.001}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[H]
\centering\centering
\caption{\label{tab:unnamed-chunk-17}Predicting demographic features as a function of treatment assignment (Public Sample).}
\centering
\fontsize{7}{9}\selectfont
\begin{tabular}[t]{lcccc}
\toprule
  & Age & Ideology & Education & Gender\\
\midrule
(Intercept) & \num{59.17}*** & \num{2.13}*** & \num{3.86}*** & \num{0.31}***\\
 & (\num{1.36}) & (\num{0.08}) & (\num{0.10}) & (\num{0.04})\\
SQ Rhetoric & \num{-1.53} & \num{-0.09} & \num{0.03} & \num{0.04}\\
 & (\num{1.94}) & (\num{0.12}) & (\num{0.14}) & (\num{0.06})\\
SQ Behavior & \num{-0.81} & \num{-0.16} & \num{0.07} & \num{0.07}\\
 & (\num{2.00}) & (\num{0.12}) & (\num{0.14}) & (\num{0.06})\\
SQ Rhet.*SQ Behav. & \num{1.94} & \num{0.27} & \num{-0.08} & \num{-0.10}\\
 & (\num{2.78}) & (\num{0.16}) & (\num{0.20}) & (\num{0.09})\\
\midrule
Num.Obs. & \num{491} & \num{488} & \num{497} & \num{489}\\
R2 & \num{0.001} & \num{0.007} & \num{0.001} & \num{0.003}\\
\bottomrule
\multicolumn{5}{l}{\rule{0pt}{1em}** p $<$ 0.05, *** p $<$ 0.001}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\clearpage

\end{document}
