Department of Philosophy
Kansas State University
201 Dickens Hall
Manhattan, KS 66506-0803

 

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

 

Department Head:           Bruce Glymour
glymour@ksu.edu


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