Item Details

Print View

Responsible Analysis When Tradeoffs Are Taboo, 2002 [electronic resource]

Robin Gregory
Format
Computer Resource; Online; Dataset
Published
Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2013
Edition
2013-09-11
Series
ICPSR
ICPSR (Series)
Access Restriction
AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to ICPSR member institutions.
Abstract
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.Cf: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR34810.v1
Contents
  • Survey Data
  • Demographic Data
Description
Mode of access: Intranet.
Notes
Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2016-02-11.
Series Statement
ICPSR 34810
ICPSR (Series) 34810
Other Forms
Also available as downloadable files.
Copyright Not EvaluatedCopyright Not Evaluated
Technical Details
  • Staff View

    LEADER 03155cmm a2200541la 4500
    001 ICPSR34810
    003 MiAaI
    006 m f a u
    007 cr mn mmmmuuuu
    008 160211s2013 miu f a eng d
    035
      
      
    a| (MiAaI)ICPSR34810
    040
      
      
    a| MiAaI c| MiAaI
    245
    0
    0
    a| Responsible Analysis When Tradeoffs are Taboo, 2002 h| [electronic resource] c| Robin Gregory
    250
      
      
    a| 2013-09-11
    260
      
      
    a| Ann Arbor, Mich. b| Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] c| 2013
    490
      
      
    a| ICPSR v| 34810
    516
      
      
    a| Numeric
    538
      
      
    a| Mode of access: Intranet.
    500
      
      
    a| Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2016-02-11.
    536
      
      
    a| National Science Foundation c| 0114924
    506
      
      
    a| AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to ICPSR member institutions.
    530
      
      
    a| Also available as downloadable files.
    522
      
      
    a| Oregon
    522
      
      
    a| United States
    520
    3
      
    a| 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.Cf: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR34810.v1
    505
      
      
    t| Survey Data
    505
      
      
    t| Demographic Data
    567
      
      
    a| Adults aged 18 to 62 recruited by the University of Oregon.
    650
      
    7
    a| cloning 2| icpsr
    650
      
    7
    a| cognitive processes 2| icpsr
    650
      
    7
    a| decision making 2| icpsr
    650
      
    7
    a| environmental protection 2| icpsr
    650
      
    7
    a| ethics 2| icpsr
    650
      
    7
    a| genetic engineering 2| icpsr
    650
      
    7
    a| human rights 2| icpsr
    650
      
    7
    a| insurance coverage 2| icpsr
    650
      
    7
    a| judgment 2| icpsr
    650
      
    7
    a| moral judgement 2| icpsr
    650
      
    7
    a| prescription drugs 2| icpsr
    650
      
    7
    a| risk 2| icpsr
    650
      
    7
    a| social values 2| icpsr
    650
      
    7
    a| terrorism 2| icpsr
    653
    0
      
    a| ICPSR XIV. Mass Political Behavior and Attitudes
    653
    0
      
    a| ICPSR XVII. Social Institutions and Behavior
    700
    2
      
    a| Gregory, Robin u| Decision Research
    710
    2
      
    a| Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.
    830
      
    0
    a| ICPSR (Series) v| 34810
    856
    4
    0
    u| http://proxy01.its.virginia.edu/login?url=http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR34810.v1
    999
      
      
    w| WEB l| INTERNET m| UVA-LIB t| INTERNET
▾See more
▴See less

Availability

Access Online