5. AmErIcA’s commItmEnt to chAngE We then expanded our exploration by adding two versions of the question – to dig into the amount of pay ❱ MeThOdOlOgY that was at stake. When the amount of pay was speci昀椀ed, the majority of respondents were still signi昀椀cantly Results this year are based on only those more likely to select Company A over Company B – even when Company B paid 20% more than Company A. respondents in the workforce: paid The results do show, however, that respondents were sensitive to the di昀昀erence in pay: when 10% of pay was employees and self-employed workers, as well as those temporarily laid o昀昀 and at stake, 77% chose Company A; when 20% of pay was at stake, 71% chose Company A. currently looking for work. Excluded were respondents who were retired or not working due to a disability. 77% chose Company A: 71% chose Company A: Respondents were randomly assigned More just, but pays 10% less More just, but pays 20% less to one of three versions of the question: (1) pay not speci昀椀ed, (2) pay 10% more/ 23% chose Company B: 29% chose Company B: less, (3) pay 20% more/less. Less just, but pays 10% more Less just, but pays 20% more The choice of Company A or Company B was made personally relevant by asking each respondent to identify their annual salary range for the type of work they do, or have done. Those responses were then used, in the two versions that speci昀椀ed the amount of pay, to estimate Q. See page 11. Base: Working Respondents (N = 1,602 unweighted), MOE +/- 3.2 percentage points. Note: Numbers might not sum to 100% due to rounding. salary 昀椀gures for 10% less/more and 20% less/more, based on the individual respondent’s annual salary range. 12 | JUS12 | JUST CT CAPITAPITALAL