**Principal investigator(s):** **Eric Groenendyk** University of Memphis Email: grnendyk@memphis.edu Homepage: https://www.memphis.edu/polisci/people/faculty_and_staff/eric-groenendyk.php **Sample size:** 2009 **Field period:** 04/13/2021-07/01/2021 **Abstract** The ability to measure political interest is fundamental for political science research. This measure has a strong relationship with political participation, and, even more broadly, represents “the public’s capacity for self-governance” (Prior 2019, 9). However, responses to the standard measure depend on what respondents understand “politics” to mean. People may associate politics with petty partisan conflict and corrupt politicians, or they may associate it with policies, outcomes, and other efforts to rid America of persistent ills. To test whether these sorts of differences affect levels of interest, we manipulate the wording of the standard political interest question to specify different possible interpretations of the word politics: “How interested are you in politics, by which we mean…” Our treatments vary along two dimensions: conflict (politics as laws and policies versus politics as debate over laws and policies) and goals (no additional elaboration versus laws and policies to address problems facing the country). In the baseline condition, we offer no elaboration on the meaning of politics. We find that, compared to baseline, respondents express greater interest when politics is associated with laws and policies and less interest when it is associated with debate about laws and policies. The positive effect of specifying laws and policies is concentrated among conflict avoiders, while the negative effect of specifying debate is concentrated among conflict seekers. The goals manipulation seems to matter less but does appear to attenuate the negative effect of debate in the full sample. **Hypotheses** H1: Specifying laws and policies will drive up interest in politics compared to baseline. H2: Specifying debate about laws and policies will drive down interest in politics compared to baseline. H3: Specifying that laws and policies are to address problems facing the country will accentuate the positive effect predicted in H1 and attenuate the negative effect predicted in H2. H4: All effects will be larger among individuals who score higher in conflict avoidance. **Experimental Manipulations** Control: politics T1: politics, by which we mean laws and policies T2: politics, by which we mean laws and policies to address problems facing the country T3: politics, by which we mean debate about laws and policies T4: politics, by which we mean debate about laws and policies to address problems facing the country **Outcomes** How interested are you in politics [with potential elaboration]? What is it about politics that makes you interested? [open-ended] OR What is it about politics that makes you uninterested? [open-ended] **Summary of Results** H1: Specifying laws and policies will drive up interest in politics compared to baseline. (supported, ) H2: Specifying debate about laws and policies will drive down interest in politics compared to baseline. (supported) H3: Specifying that laws and policies are to address problems facing the country will accentuate the positive effect predicted in H1 and attenuate the negative effect predicted in H2. (supported for H2, but not H1) H4: All effects will be larger among individuals who score higher in conflict avoidance. (supported for H1 only) *Supported indicates p<.05