1. K-State home
  2. »Philosophy
  3. »Research Communication Ethics Project
  4. »Means and Medians

Department of Philosophy

Department of Philosophy
Kansas State University
1116 Mid Campus Dr North
201 Dickens Hall
Manhattan, KS 66506-0803

785-532-6758
785-532-3522 fax
philosophy@ksu.edu

Department Head:        

Bruce Glymour
glymour@ksu.edu

Social Media:

Follow us on Facebook!

Follow us on Twitter!

Means and Medians

Means, medians of all non-zero responses (total N=162, per question N varies)

  mean Q1medQ3 std dev
BIAS1Q1.1: Most people tend to overlook data that do not accord with their own views.4.85 456 1.44
BIAS2Q1.2: Most people test their own views primarily by looking for confirming evidence rather than possible disconfirming evidence.5.22 566 1.41
BIAS3Q1.3: Most people find ways to actively dismiss data that do not accord with their own views.4.55 456 1.55
BIAS4Q1.4: Different people with contradictory views often view the same piece of data as evidence for their own views.4.97 456 1.19
AIM1Q2.1: Successful comm:  transferring scientific information?4.86 456 1.53
AIM2Q2.2: Successful comm: generating interest in science?5.68 566.75 1.23
AIM3Q2.3: Successful comm: conveying scientific understanding?5.65 567 1.20
AIM4Q2.4: Successful comm:  creating a shared understanding?5.46 566 1.21
AIM5Q2.5: Successful comm:  getting the public to identify with the scientific enterprise?5.09 456 1.36
AIM6Q2.6: Successful comm: conveying an understanding of scientific reasoning?5.62 566 1.19
MT1Q3.1: Trolley: push stranger to save 5?2.55 124 1.85
MT2Q3.2: Trolley: hit switch, 1 dead 5 alive?4.76 456 1.79
MT3Q3.3: Soldiers: smother child, save many?3.77 245 1.84
MT4Q3.4: Trolley: destroy sculpture to save 5?6.47 677 1.17
MT5Q3.5: Clan ordered option: kill child to save family?3.19 23.54 1.71
AUD1Q4.1: General public: think that science benefits human well-being?5.62 566 1.05
AUD2Q4.2: General public: think that scientific advances pose significant dangers?4.61 456 1.49
AUD3Q4.3: General public: understand probabilities as quantitative expressions of the degree of confidence a scientist has in a theory or parameter estimate?2.53 124 1.68
AUD4Q4.4: General public: interpret reversals of a previous scientific consensus as evidence that science is unreliable?4.71 456 1.61
AUD5Q4.5: General public: think that special interests significantly influence the findings that scientists report?4.86 456 1.33
AUD6Q5.1: The use of probabilities by scientists tends to make the public doubt scientific findings?4.20 345 1.39
AUD7Q5.2: General public … capable of understanding evidential relationships?3.84 345 1.64
AUD8Q5.3: Audiences with vested economic interests ... incapable of objective assessments of scientific findings?4.69 456 1.34
AUD9Q5.4: Audiences with values leading to distrust …  incapable of rationally assessing the theories?4.72 356 1.57
AUD10Q5.5: Audiences with values … inconsistent … rational to apply higher skepticism?5.17 456 1.37
EFF1Q6.1: Champion frame effective … getting an audience to understand a scientific finding?4.19 345 1.53
EFF2Q6.2: Champion frame effective … getting an audience to accept a scientific finding?4.67 456 1.42
EFF3Q6.3: Champion frame effective … getting the audience interested in science?4.46 456 1.52
EFF4Q7.1: Learning frame effective … getting an audience to understand a scientific finding?4.79 455.75 1.11
EFF5Q7.2: Learning frame effective …getting an audience to accept a scientific finding?4.88 455 1.02
EFF6Q7.3: Learning frame effective …getting the audience interested in science?4.79 456 1.18
EFF7Q8.1: Solving frame effective … getting an audience to understand a scientific finding?5.03 456 1.33
EFF8Q8.2:  Solving frame effective … getting an audience to accept a scientific finding?5.57 566 1.01
EFF9Q8.3:  Solving frame effective … getting the audience interested in science?5.49 566 1.11
EFF10Q9.1: Adventure frame effective … getting an audience to understand a scientific finding?4.63 455.75 1.26
EFF11Q9.2:  Adventure frame effective … getting an audience to accept a scientific finding?4.90 456 1.34
EFF12Q9.3:  Adventure frame effective … getting the audience interested in science?5.08 456 1.24
CN1Q10.1: Scientists with public funding obligated to communicate results?  Not at all to Very Obligated6.29 677 1.11
CN2Q11.1: Scientists without public funding obligated to communicate results?  Not at all to Very Obligated4.86 456 1.78
CN3Q12.1: Scientists obligated to help understand?   Not at all to Very Obligated5.49 566 1.26
CN4Q13.1: When precision likely to confuse, Understanding or Precision is More Important?5.48 566.75 1.45
CN5Q14.1: In general, is understanding or accuracy more important?  From Understanding More Important to Accuracy More Important5.09 456 1.50
CN6Q15.1: To what extent is it appropriate for scientists to adjust their communications with the public to fit more comfortably with the values of their audience?4.12 34.55 1.66
CN7Q15.2: How appropriate is it for scientists to advocate acceptance of particular scientific theories, in an attempt to bring the general public to endorse those theories?4.51 456 1.37
CN8Q16.1: It is perfectly appropriate for scientists to advocate for particular policies. Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree5.39 566 1.15
CN9Q16.2: Scientists should disavow their status as experts when advocating for particular policies.  Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree3.06 234 1.62
BEH1Q17.1: Sue emphasize possible long-term benefit,  human progress ...  Very Inappropriate to Very Appropriate5.55 566 1.17
BEH2Q17.2: Sue omit potential risks ... Very Inappropriate to Very Appropriate1.62 112 0.87
BEH3Q17.3: Sue mention risk via lightening analogy without precise info ...   Very Inappropriate to Very Appropriate3.89 245 1.79
BEH4Q18.1: Thomas use upstart frame …  Very Inappropriate to Very Appropriate4.68 456 1.47
BEH5Q18.2: Thomas use hired guns special interests frame …     Very Inappropriate to Very Appropriate3.16 234 1.42
BEH6Q18.3: Thomas use moral champion frame …     Very Inappropriate to Very Appropriate3.34 234 1.40
BEH7Q19.1: Justine meet halfway to foster understanding … Very Inappropriate to Very Appropriate3.70 245 1.53
BEH8Q20.1: Justine meet halfway to foster understanding … Very Ineffective to Very Effective?3.94 345 1.37
BEH9Q21.1: Jason meet halfway to foster acceptance .. Very Inappropriate to Appropriate?3.75 245 1.56
BEH10Q22.1: Jason meet halfway to foster acceptance … Very Ineffective to Very Effective?3.97 345 1.37
BEH11Q23.1: Moira omit mention of divergent model … Very Inappropriate to Very Appropriate?3.53 335 1.34
BEH12Q23.2: John omit issue of model uncertainty ..  Very Inappropriate to Very Appropriate?3.94 345 1.39
BEH13Q23.3: Theresa emphasize divergent model …  Very Inappropriate to Very Appropriate?4.59 456 1.47
BIAS5Q24.1: Knowledge of  assimilation bias as cognitive process5.14 556 1.51
BIAS6Q24.2: Knowledge of confirmation bias as cognitive process5.39 566 1.38
BIAS7Q24.3: Knowledge of attitude polarization effect as social phenomenon4.40 356 1.71