Search alternatives:
greatest decrease » treatment decreased (Expand Search), greater increase (Expand Search)
gap decrease » a decrease (Expand Search), gain decreased (Expand Search), step decrease (Expand Search)
we decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), a decrease (Expand Search), nn decrease (Expand Search)
greatest decrease » treatment decreased (Expand Search), greater increase (Expand Search)
gap decrease » a decrease (Expand Search), gain decreased (Expand Search), step decrease (Expand Search)
we decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), a decrease (Expand Search), nn decrease (Expand Search)
-
681
Sample attribute table.
Published 2025“…When are individuals more likely to support equal treatment algorithms (ETAs), characterized by higher predictive accuracy, and when do they prefer equal impact algorithms (EIAs) that reduce performance gaps between groups? A randomized conjoint experiment and a follow-up choice experiment revealed that support for the EIAs decreased sharply as their accuracy gap grew, although impact parity was prioritized more when ETAs produced large outcome discrepancies. …”
-
682
Subgroup analysis – Political affiliation.
Published 2025“…When are individuals more likely to support equal treatment algorithms (ETAs), characterized by higher predictive accuracy, and when do they prefer equal impact algorithms (EIAs) that reduce performance gaps between groups? A randomized conjoint experiment and a follow-up choice experiment revealed that support for the EIAs decreased sharply as their accuracy gap grew, although impact parity was prioritized more when ETAs produced large outcome discrepancies. …”
-
683
Sample scenario description.
Published 2025“…When are individuals more likely to support equal treatment algorithms (ETAs), characterized by higher predictive accuracy, and when do they prefer equal impact algorithms (EIAs) that reduce performance gaps between groups? A randomized conjoint experiment and a follow-up choice experiment revealed that support for the EIAs decreased sharply as their accuracy gap grew, although impact parity was prioritized more when ETAs produced large outcome discrepancies. …”
-
684
AMCEs – Pooled across scenarios.
Published 2025“…When are individuals more likely to support equal treatment algorithms (ETAs), characterized by higher predictive accuracy, and when do they prefer equal impact algorithms (EIAs) that reduce performance gaps between groups? A randomized conjoint experiment and a follow-up choice experiment revealed that support for the EIAs decreased sharply as their accuracy gap grew, although impact parity was prioritized more when ETAs produced large outcome discrepancies. …”
-
685
Methodological flowchart.
Published 2025“…When are individuals more likely to support equal treatment algorithms (ETAs), characterized by higher predictive accuracy, and when do they prefer equal impact algorithms (EIAs) that reduce performance gaps between groups? A randomized conjoint experiment and a follow-up choice experiment revealed that support for the EIAs decreased sharply as their accuracy gap grew, although impact parity was prioritized more when ETAs produced large outcome discrepancies. …”
-
686
Preference for the EIA vs. ETA across scenarios.
Published 2025“…When are individuals more likely to support equal treatment algorithms (ETAs), characterized by higher predictive accuracy, and when do they prefer equal impact algorithms (EIAs) that reduce performance gaps between groups? A randomized conjoint experiment and a follow-up choice experiment revealed that support for the EIAs decreased sharply as their accuracy gap grew, although impact parity was prioritized more when ETAs produced large outcome discrepancies. …”
-
687
-
688
Decreased synthesis of VCAM-1, tubulin and dynein proteins in the heart of mice stimulated with EVs (green) or ICs (blue).
Published 2025“…The values represent the mean ± SEM, with significance set at p < 0.05 (*).…”
-
689
-
690
-
691
-
692
Description of the warning label.
Published 2024“…The random parameters logit model results showed a significant overall decrease in SSB purchases when a warning label was present, indicated by a significant negative coefficient associated with the label. …”
-
693
Flow chart of the study.
Published 2024“…The random parameters logit model results showed a significant overall decrease in SSB purchases when a warning label was present, indicated by a significant negative coefficient associated with the label. …”
-
694
Summary statistics of the sample.
Published 2024“…The random parameters logit model results showed a significant overall decrease in SSB purchases when a warning label was present, indicated by a significant negative coefficient associated with the label. …”
-
695
Product attributes and attribute levels.
Published 2024“…The random parameters logit model results showed a significant overall decrease in SSB purchases when a warning label was present, indicated by a significant negative coefficient associated with the label. …”
-
696
Dataset used in this study.
Published 2024“…The random parameters logit model results showed a significant overall decrease in SSB purchases when a warning label was present, indicated by a significant negative coefficient associated with the label. …”
-
697
Definitions of the variables.
Published 2024“…The random parameters logit model results showed a significant overall decrease in SSB purchases when a warning label was present, indicated by a significant negative coefficient associated with the label. …”
-
698
A sample choice question without a warning label.
Published 2024“…The random parameters logit model results showed a significant overall decrease in SSB purchases when a warning label was present, indicated by a significant negative coefficient associated with the label. …”
-
699
A sample choice question with a warning label.
Published 2024“…The random parameters logit model results showed a significant overall decrease in SSB purchases when a warning label was present, indicated by a significant negative coefficient associated with the label. …”
-
700