About the Project Survey Data and Descriptive Statistics Analysis and Results Education and Training Links Contact Us
Kansas State University Center for Origins Philosophy Psychology Physics Biology Communication

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

 

 

Page updated September 8, 2008
Designed with JSB Web Templates