DOI: 10.3886/icpsr37033
title: Industry Partnership Views Survey, United States, 2016
title: Archival Version

description: The contained collection was designed to assess potential perceptions of two hypothetical health science research collaborations.
The studies were also designed to test the utility of using procedural justice concepts to assess perceptions of research legitimacy
as a theoretical way to determine public opinions on conflicts of interest.
The researchers performed three experimental studies to examine how different combinations of partners in
a research collaboration influence subjects' perceived procedural fairness and legitimacy based on collaborative partnerships.
Datafiles:
Experience 1: 1000 cases, 92 variables
Experience 2: 1058 cases, 88 variables
Experience 3: 2107 cases, 76 variables
For more information about this study, please visit the study publication 
here.
description: The contained collection was designed to assess potential perceptions of two hypothetical health science research collaborations. The studies were also designed to test the utility of using procedural justice concepts to assess perceptions of research legitimacy as a theoretical way to determine public opinions on conflicts of interest.
The researchers performed three experimental studies to examine how different combinations of partners in a research collaboration influence subjects' perceived procedural fairness and legitimacy based on collaborative partnerships.
description: Study 1 subjects were told that the researchers wanted to learn their views about a potential
new cooperative research partnership aimed at studying the possible negative health impacts
of low levels of transfats in food. The only part of the message that varied
across the experimental conditions was the specific combination of the following partners:

Kellogg's (a food company)
Purdue University
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, a government agency) and
The Union of Concerned Scientists (a non-governmental organization).

For Study 2, the researchers chose to focus on the health impacts of genetically modified (GM) food. To aim for
wider generalizability across Studies 1 and 2, they further clarified that the proposed research on
GM food would investigate possible positive health impacts of new GM grains (e.g., rice,
wheat, corn) that are being designed to absorb less toxic substances from the soil than do current
grains. This focus on the potential positive health impacts of GM food
in Study 2 may tap different dynamics than does the focus on the potential negative health
impacts of small amounts of transfats in food in Study 1.
Other than shifting the substantive focus from transfats to GM food and replacing the CDC
with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as the governmental agency partner,
Study 2 employed the same design and identical measures to those used in Study 1.
Study 3 used the same transfats stimulus and between-subjects design with 15 randomly
assigned conditions as in Study 1. After providing consent in the same manner as in Studies 1
and 2, subjects read their assigned description of a proposed partnership to examine the effects
of small amounts of transfats in foods and answered the same three comprehension questions
as used in Study 1. The remainder of the experiment simply asked subjects to respond to three
open-ended questions about the partnership and its research.
The experiment was administered via Qualtrics to subjects which were recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT), a crowdsourcing website where "requesters" solicit "workers" to perform "human intelligence tasks" (HITs) for pay. Participation was limited to adults residing in the United States.
For more information about this study, please visit the study publication here.
description: <strong>Experience 1</strong>

Conflict of Interest Questions
Opinions on Research Partnership
Opinions on Health
Background Knowledge Testing
Media Attention
Demographic Variables

<strong>Experience 2</strong>

Conflict of Interest Questions
Opinions on Research Partnership
Opinions on Health and Environment
Background Knowledge Testing
Demographic Variables

<strong>Experience 3</strong>

Conflict of Interest Questions
Opinions on Research Partnership
Opinions on Health
Background Knowledge Testing
Media Attention
Demographic Variables
description: For more information about this study, please visit the study publication here.
description: Datasets: 
DS0: Study-Level Files
DS1: Experience 1
DS2: Experience 2
DS3: Experience 3
description: Adults (18 and older) residing in the United States. Smallest Geographic Unit: none
description: web-based surveyString variables longer than 244 characters are included in a csv file.Several variable labels in datasets 2 and 3 were truncated in the original data. No information was provided.