<p>For the last several years, the Florida legislature has considered bills that would allow people who have a concealed weapons license to carry concealed guns on public college campuses in Florida. In 2016, we surveyed faculty, staff, and students at the University of Florida to assess their attitudes about the legislation, their feelings of safety currently, and the anticipated consequences if legislation allowed concealed guns on campus. </p>
<p>We pre-registered our hypotheses together before we began data collection in mid-March 2016. The first of three papers addresses hypotheses regarding participants’ reasons for gun ownership and their perceptions of safety on campus (<a href="https://osf.io/8j5zs/" rel="nofollow">https://osf.io/8j5zs/</a>). The second paper addresses hypotheses regarding the anticipated consequences for the academic atmosphere of allowing concealed guns on campus (<a href="https://osf.io/u3bv2/" rel="nofollow">https://osf.io/u3bv2/</a>). The third paper will address other pre-registered and exploratory hypotheses. See the specific project page for each of the papers listed under the “components” section of this overview page.</p>
<p><strong>Summary of deviations from the pre-registered analysis plan (JSP paper: Gun Attitudes On Campus)</strong></p>
<p>In the interest of transparency, we describe three ways in which we deviated from the analysis plan that we pre-registered as part of the larger project (described in the registration on this project page: <a href="https://osf.io/e76fv/register/565fb3678c5e4a66b5582f67" rel="nofollow">https://osf.io/e76fv/register/565fb3678c5e4a66b5582f67</a>).
1. After submitting the preregistration, but before we began data analysis, we realized that it was more appropriate to distinguish between three groups (non-owners of guns, protection gun owners, non-protection owners) rather than two groups (non-owners of guns, gun owners). All analyses we report distinguish between three groups.
2. We preregistered the hypotheses and data analysis section, but afterwards a statistics colleague suggested that our plan for dealing with outliers (data transformation) was not wise. He convinced us to log-transform rather than Windsorize the data.
3. We proposed some hypotheses and analyses in preregistration that are not included in this paper. Some appear in a second paper that is now under review. Others are part of third paper that is under construction. See the specific project page for each of the papers listed under the “components” section of this overview page.</p>
<p><em>Full explanation of deviations from the pre-registered analysis plan:</em> <a href="https://osf.io/yz58f/" rel="nofollow">https://osf.io/yz58f/</a></p>
<p><strong>Disclosure of Open Materials</strong></p>
<p>The materials necessary for replicating the methods are contained in this document: UFGun2016 Full Survey Items (<a href="https://osf.io/esj5f/" rel="nofollow">https://osf.io/esj5f/</a>).</p>
<p>The data and codebook are located in the "Data and Codebook" folder on the main project page (<a href="https://osf.io/txa5j/" rel="nofollow">https://osf.io/txa5j/</a>). </p>
<p>The syntax necessary to reproduce the results for the forthcoming JSP paper is located in the "GunSafety syntax" folder, which is located on the paper's component page: Gun Attitudes on Campus: United and Divided by Safety Needs (<a href="https://osf.io/8j5zs/" rel="nofollow">https://osf.io/8j5zs/</a>). </p>