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   Q1 med Q3   std dev
BIAS1 Q1.1: Most people tend to overlook data that do not accord with their own views. 4.85   4 5 6   1.44
BIAS2 Q1.2: Most people test their own views primarily by looking for confirming evidence rather than possible disconfirming evidence. 5.22   5 6 6   1.41
BIAS3 Q1.3: Most people find ways to actively dismiss data that do not accord with their own views. 4.55   4 5 6   1.55
BIAS4 Q1.4: Different people with contradictory views often view the same piece of data as evidence for their own views. 4.97   4 5 6   1.19
AIM1 Q2.1: Successful comm:  transferring scientific information? 4.86   4 5 6   1.53
AIM2 Q2.2: Successful comm: generating interest in science? 5.68   5 6 6.75   1.23
AIM3 Q2.3: Successful comm: conveying scientific understanding? 5.65   5 6 7   1.20
AIM4 Q2.4: Successful comm:  creating a shared understanding? 5.46   5 6 6   1.21
AIM5 Q2.5: Successful comm:  getting the public to identify with the scientific enterprise? 5.09   4 5 6   1.36
AIM6 Q2.6: Successful comm: conveying an understanding of scientific reasoning? 5.62   5 6 6   1.19
MT1 Q3.1: Trolley: push stranger to save 5? 2.55   1 2 4   1.85
MT2 Q3.2: Trolley: hit switch, 1 dead 5 alive? 4.76   4 5 6   1.79
MT3 Q3.3: Soldiers: smother child, save many? 3.77   2 4 5   1.84
MT4 Q3.4: Trolley: destroy sculpture to save 5? 6.47   6 7 7   1.17
MT5 Q3.5: Clan ordered option: kill child to save family? 3.19   2 3.5 4   1.71
AUD1 Q4.1: General public: think that science benefits human well-being? 5.62   5 6 6   1.05
AUD2 Q4.2: General public: think that scientific advances pose significant dangers? 4.61   4 5 6   1.49
AUD3 Q4.3: General public: understand probabilities as quantitative expressions of the degree of confidence a scientist has in a theory or parameter estimate? 2.53   1 2 4   1.68
AUD4 Q4.4: General public: interpret reversals of a previous scientific consensus as evidence that science is unreliable? 4.71   4 5 6   1.61
AUD5 Q4.5: General public: think that special interests significantly influence the findings that scientists report? 4.86   4 5 6   1.33
AUD6 Q5.1: The use of probabilities by scientists tends to make the public doubt scientific findings? 4.20   3 4 5   1.39
AUD7 Q5.2: General public … capable of understanding evidential relationships? 3.84   3 4 5   1.64
AUD8 Q5.3: Audiences with vested economic interests ... incapable of objective assessments of scientific findings? 4.69   4 5 6   1.34
AUD9 Q5.4: Audiences with values leading to distrust …  incapable of rationally assessing the theories? 4.72   3 5 6   1.57
AUD10 Q5.5: Audiences with values … inconsistent … rational to apply higher skepticism? 5.17   4 5 6   1.37
EFF1 Q6.1: Champion frame effective … getting an audience to understand a scientific finding? 4.19   3 4 5   1.53
EFF2 Q6.2: Champion frame effective … getting an audience to accept a scientific finding? 4.67   4 5 6   1.42
EFF3 Q6.3: Champion frame effective … getting the audience interested in science? 4.46   4 5 6   1.52
EFF4 Q7.1: Learning frame effective … getting an audience to understand a scientific finding? 4.79   4 5 5.75   1.11
EFF5 Q7.2: Learning frame effective …getting an audience to accept a scientific finding? 4.88   4 5 5   1.02
EFF6 Q7.3: Learning frame effective …getting the audience interested in science? 4.79   4 5 6   1.18
EFF7 Q8.1: Solving frame effective … getting an audience to understand a scientific finding? 5.03   4 5 6   1.33
EFF8 Q8.2:  Solving frame effective … getting an audience to accept a scientific finding? 5.57   5 6 6   1.01
EFF9 Q8.3:  Solving frame effective … getting the audience interested in science? 5.49   5 6 6   1.11
EFF10 Q9.1: Adventure frame effective … getting an audience to understand a scientific finding? 4.63   4 5 5.75   1.26
EFF11 Q9.2:  Adventure frame effective … getting an audience to accept a scientific finding? 4.90   4 5 6   1.34
EFF12 Q9.3:  Adventure frame effective … getting the audience interested in science? 5.08   4 5 6   1.24
CN1 Q10.1: Scientists with public funding obligated to communicate results?  Not at all to Very Obligated 6.29   6 7 7   1.11
CN2 Q11.1: Scientists without public funding obligated to communicate results?  Not at all to Very Obligated 4.86   4 5 6   1.78
CN3 Q12.1: Scientists obligated to help understand?   Not at all to Very Obligated 5.49   5 6 6   1.26
CN4 Q13.1: When precision likely to confuse, Understanding or Precision is More Important? 5.48   5 6 6.75   1.45
CN5 Q14.1: In general, is understanding or accuracy more important?  From Understanding More Important to Accuracy More Important 5.09   4 5 6   1.50
CN6 Q15.1: 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   3 4.5 5   1.66
CN7 Q15.2: 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   4 5 6   1.37
CN8 Q16.1: It is perfectly appropriate for scientists to advocate for particular policies. Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree 5.39   5 6 6   1.15
CN9 Q16.2: Scientists should disavow their status as experts when advocating for particular policies.  Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree 3.06   2 3 4   1.62
BEH1 Q17.1: Sue emphasize possible long-term benefit,  human progress ...  Very Inappropriate to Very Appropriate 5.55   5 6 6   1.17
BEH2 Q17.2: Sue omit potential risks ... Very Inappropriate to Very Appropriate 1.62   1 1 2   0.87
BEH3 Q17.3: Sue mention risk via lightening analogy without precise info ...   Very Inappropriate to Very Appropriate 3.89   2 4 5   1.79
BEH4 Q18.1: Thomas use upstart frame …  Very Inappropriate to Very Appropriate 4.68   4 5 6   1.47
BEH5 Q18.2: Thomas use hired guns special interests frame …     Very Inappropriate to Very Appropriate 3.16   2 3 4   1.42
BEH6 Q18.3: Thomas use moral champion frame …     Very Inappropriate to Very Appropriate 3.34   2 3 4   1.40
BEH7 Q19.1: Justine meet halfway to foster understanding … Very Inappropriate to Very Appropriate 3.70   2 4 5   1.53
BEH8 Q20.1: Justine meet halfway to foster understanding … Very Ineffective to Very Effective? 3.94   3 4 5   1.37
BEH9 Q21.1: Jason meet halfway to foster acceptance .. Very Inappropriate to Appropriate? 3.75   2 4 5   1.56
BEH10 Q22.1: Jason meet halfway to foster acceptance … Very Ineffective to Very Effective? 3.97   3 4 5   1.37
BEH11 Q23.1: Moira omit mention of divergent model … Very Inappropriate to Very Appropriate? 3.53   3 3 5   1.34
BEH12 Q23.2: John omit issue of model uncertainty ..  Very Inappropriate to Very Appropriate? 3.94   3 4 5   1.39
BEH13 Q23.3: Theresa emphasize divergent model …  Very Inappropriate to Very Appropriate? 4.59   4 5 6   1.47
BIAS5 Q24.1: Knowledge of  assimilation bias as cognitive process 5.14   5 5 6   1.51
BIAS6 Q24.2: Knowledge of confirmation bias as cognitive process 5.39   5 6 6   1.38
BIAS7 Q24.3: Knowledge of attitude polarization effect as social phenomenon 4.40   3 5 6   1.71