Showing 1 – 6 of 6 results.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Responsible Analysis When Tradeoffs are Taboo, 2002 (ICPSR 34810)
Released/updated on: 2013-09-11
Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States
Time period: 2002-05-07--2002-05-08
Responsible Analysis When Tradeoffs are Taboo was conducted in order to better understand "taboo" responses, and to distinguish choices that are truly taboo from those that are actually difficult or confusing. Respondents reviewed information for a number of different potentially taboo plans, decisions, or proposals, such as human cell cloning, genetic modification of wheat, different insurance rates for smokers and non-smokers, and were then asked to give their opinions regarding those proposals. Respondents were given different reason sets to agree or disagree with, relative to each proposal, that ranged from whether the proposal was morally wrong to whether the proposal violates the norms of society. If respondents did not agree with the proposal, they were asked additional questions. These additional questions were used to assess whether respondents would agree with the proposal passing if there was a dollar amount that they would save as a result. In this collection, the experiment had 22 scenarios and respondents were each given 11 of these scenarios. Demographic variables included gender, age, native language, ethnic identity, and year in school.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Improving Deliberative Environmental Management Under Uncertainty, 2009-2010 (ICPSR 34809)
Released/updated on: 2013-08-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2009-01-01--2010-12-31
Improving Deliberative Environmental Management Under Uncertainty examined similarities and differences between expert and public understanding of uncertainty. This collection directly compares expert and layperson interpretations and understandings of different expressions of uncertainty, in the context of evaluating the consequences of proposed environmental management actions that influence economic, social, or health concerns. Data were collected via a Web-based survey where respondents were asked a series of questions after they were given four hypothetical scenarios on the following topics: wind farms, vegetation management, superfund site, and salmon. Each scenario described an environmental proposal along with pros and cons then respondents selected a response option with costs and benefits of the proposal in mind. The first scenario focused on a plan to manage forest vegetation in the northeastern United States, using either conventional methods involving aerial spraying of herbicides or more expensive hand spraying methods intended to reduce adverse impacts on local moose populations. The second scenario focused on a proposal to build a new windfarm in a western state, which would lower electricity rates to local communities but could have negative effects on resident songbird populations. The third scenario focused on a plan to clean up hazardous waste at a large industrial Superfund site. The waste was estimated to have caused 200 children to develop serious respiratory illness from exposure to contaminated drinking water; building a decontamination facility would reduce the number of sick children but would be very expensive and would take time to build. The fourth scenario focused on a plan to reduce the declining population of Chinook Salmon. In order to reduce the Chinook Salmon declines in the Seshon River, an advisory committee must find a balance between the protection of salmon and the use of water to generate electricity, which is a cause in salmon reduction. Participants responded to hypothetical but realistic scenarios involving trade-offs between options presented and other objectives, and were asked a series of questions about their comprehension of the uncertainty information, their preferred choice among the alternatives, and the associated difficulty and amount of effort. Respondents were asked general questions which ranged from how they felt about a particular issue to how easy or difficult it was to answer the questions associated with each scenario. Demographic information includes gender, age and education level.
Curated
Restricted
Multi-Trial Associative Recognition Memory Task with Metacognitive Judgments (ICPSR 34708)
Released/updated on: 2013-06-25
Geographic coverage: United States, Atlanta, Georgia
These data are from an experiment studying the accuracy of metacognitive judgments (judgments of learning (JOLs), retrospective confidence judgments, estimated response times) in the context of an associative recognition task. The purpose of the study was to assess the influence of different cues on trial 2 JOLs, assessing the "memory for past test" heuristic. Individuals self-paced their study time for pairs of concrete nouns, and then received a yes/no associative recognition task, in which they were tested with intact pairs from study or rearranged pairs. The experimental program recorded responses and computed accuracy and latency. These data were analyzed and reported in a paper published in the Archives of Scientific Psychology, "Judgments of Learning are Influenced by Multiple Cues In Addition to Memory for Past Test Accuracy."
Curated
Restricted
Phrasing Questions in Terms of Current (not future) Knowledge Increases Preferences for Cue-only Judgments of Learning (ICPSR 34645)
Released/updated on: 2013-05-15
Geographic coverage: Sweden, Global, Stockholm
Time period: 2011-01-01--2011-03-31
Judgments of learning (JOLs) predict later recall more accurately when they are made, after a delay, based on a cue alone as compared to a cue and target. The investigation focussed on whether people recognize the benefit of cue-only responses when making JOLs and whether their preferences depend on how JOL prompts are phrased. Forty participants studied glossaries and then made delayed cue-only and cue-target JOLs. In one condition, where the JOL prompts were phrased as predictions of future memory performance, only 15 percent of the participants preferred the cue-only strategy, replicating Jönsson and Kerimi (2011). In another condition, where JOLs were phrased as assessments of the current state of learning, 55 percent preferred the cue-only strategy. To conclude, students do not seem to recognize the value of cue-only JOLs, but they picked the superior JOL strategy more often when the JOL phrasing focused their attention on their knowledge state at the time of the JOL, rather than on a future state.
Curated
Dissociating Affect and Deliberation in Choice Processes, 2001 (ICPSR 26281)
Released/updated on: 2010-01-25
Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States
Time period: 2001-09-01--2001-09-30
This study was conducted to examine hypotheses derived from an emotion-based model of stigma responses to radiation sources. A model of stigma susceptibility was proposed in which affective reactions and cognitive worldviews activate predispositions to appraise and experience events in systematic ways that result in the generation of negative emotion, risk perceptions, and stigma responses. For this study, a total of 198 respondents were asked about a series of 15 objects and activities: sun-tanning, radiation therapy for cancer control, microwave ovens, nuclear power plants, radiation from air travel, death of a favorite pet, medical x-rays, the upcoming spring break, natural background radiation, final exams for the term, radiation from nuclear weapons testing, radiation to prevent bacteria in food, a series of thefts or crimes in their neighborhoods, cosmic radiation, and radioactive waste from nuclear power plants. Providing ratings on 17 scales, respondents gave their feelings about each object or activity, offered their opinions on situations wherein the object or activity would or would not be of concern, the impact of the object or activity in their lives, and their adjustment to situations involving the object or activity. Queries also included how angry and afraid the object or activity made respondents, and how risky, disgraceful, moral, acceptable, and stigmatized they felt it was. Finally, participants provided self-report ratings of affective reactivity and worldviews.
Curated
Affect, Reason, and Decision Making (ICPSR 24610)
Released/updated on: 2009-09-22
Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States, Australia
Time period: 1995-01-01--1995-12-31
This study examines the commonly observed inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. The researchers proposed that this relationship occurs because people rely on affect when judging the risk and benefit of specific hazards. The study tested and confirmed the hypothesis that providing information designed to alter the favorability of one's overall affective evaluation of an item (say nuclear power, natural gas, and food preservatives) would systematically change the risk and benefit judgments for that item. The study suggests that people seem prone to using an "affect heuristic" which improves judgmental efficiency by deriving both risk and benefit evaluations from a common source -- affective reactions to the stimulus item.