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 |