Please help with a science survey

A colleague at the Center for Biodiversity and Conservation Studies at Loma Linda has asked me to pass this on to you:

IMPORTANT SURVEY ON ATTITUDES TOWARD THE ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION – Your help is needed! The Loma Linda University Center for Biodiversity and Conservation Studies is conducting a groundbreaking survey on attitudes toward the environment and conservation, particularly of those who love plants and animals. The results from this study, to be published in a professional journal, will contribute to our understanding of the role of plants and animals in society. Participants are urgently needed to complete the survey, which should take about 5-10 minutes of your time. Please click on this link.


  1. #1 Larian LeQuella
    October 18, 2010

    Shared on FB, and survey completed. 🙂

  2. #2 Russell
    October 18, 2010

    Your colleague needs practice making surveys. Far too many of the rankings on that one were phrased in the negative:

    “X is not the case”: agree, neutral disagree.

    Feh. 29% of the people answering that will get the sense wrong and give an answer false to what they intend. Which makes the results untrustworthy.

  3. #3 Wyatt
    October 18, 2010

    I didn’t have any trouble understanding the questions.

  4. #4 gwen
    October 18, 2010

    There were some questions where there were not enough choices, forcing me to skip the question entirely. Not all of the yes/no questions necessarily had a yes/no answer.

  5. #5 Clam
    October 19, 2010

    I agree with both Russell and Gwen. Unfortunately the questions disappear when completed and one cannot remember the exact wording, but double negatives are always tricky. Wyatt said he had no trouble. I wonder whether he really did understand the questions?
    I spent some ten years of my life writing psychometric software and implementing tests and found that the precise wording of a question had an inordinate effect on test results, particularly when conducting them with less-well educated respondees (into which class one might venture to place the majority of the U.S. public?).

  6. #6 Wyatt
    October 19, 2010

    I did understand the questions. The “agree/disagree” wording makes it quite simple. The reason “agree/disagree” is used is to avoid the double negative wording.

    “There are no birds flying out of my ears”

    I think about that. I think about what it means. I strongly feel that there are no birds flying out of my ears. I feel that this statement, “There are no birds flying out of my ears”, very much reflects what I am thinking. I thus strongly agree with it.

    For this:

    “Wyatt said he had no trouble. I wonder whether he really did understand the questions?”

    I think, no, I really did understand the questions. There was no time when I did not feel that I understood the statements being made and I had great confidence in picking out an answer reflecting my thoughts. So, I would say, I “strongly disagree” with this statement wondering if I understood the questions.

  7. #7 MadScientist
    October 19, 2010

    I agree with Gwen – some of the questions were of the type:

    Who created the universe?
    (a) Abraham’s god
    (b) Brahma

    As for how questions are asked (as pointed out by Clam#5), that’s pretty obvious when it comes to political polls. In the British comedy “Yes, Prime Minister” one character demonstrates the art of crafting poll questions.

  8. #8 P. Locans
    October 19, 2010

    MadScientist, I just took the survey, and I did not see any absurd questions like that. Certainly not that one! Which questions were they? Could be the survey changes for different takers?

  9. #9 Hp
    October 19, 2010

    Well, I don’t agree with those who called all the questions into question. On the other hand, I felt that my personal participation had more to do with establishing error bars than influencing actual numerical trends.

    Perhaps I would be better at answering surveys if I knew even less about statistics?

  10. #10 CaptainBlack
    October 19, 2010

    You do realise that the sample selection method being used makes this survey valueless don’t you?


  11. #11 Harbo
    October 19, 2010

    This requires pharyngulation. What an appalling piece of irritating nonsense. i want 3 minutes back

  12. #12 Virgil Samms
    October 19, 2010

    Have no fear, Christine O’Donnell is here to lecture on both science and constitutional law:
    O’Donnell questions separation of church, state

    WILMINGTON, Del. (AP) — Republican Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell of Delaware on Tuesday questioned whether the U.S. Constitution calls for a separation of church and state, appearing to disagree or not know that the First Amendment bars the government from establishing religion.

    During the exchange, she said Coons’ views on creationism showed that he believes in big-government mandates.
    “Talk about imposing your beliefs on the local schools,” she said. “You’ve just proved how little you know not just about constitutional law but about the theory of evolution.”

  13. #13 Virgil Samms
    October 19, 2010

    Earlier in the debate, O’Donnell accused Coons of constitutional ignorance, saying that “perhaps they didn’t teach you Constitutional law at Yale Divinity School.”

  14. #14 Mu
    October 19, 2010

    This is “how to pharangulate a survey”? Somehow the readership of Greg Laden isn’t quite the typical cross section of society.

  15. #15 Greg Laden
    October 19, 2010

    I’m going with the assumption that the scientists doing this survey know that they are surveying the Internet and have a sense of that that means. Most projects like this have multiple methodologies. There is a good chance that this has been thought through.

    I’m promised a copy of the resulting publication. We can check out how it all went!

  16. #16 CaptainBlack
    October 20, 2010

    If we assume that those behind the survey are not total incompetents (dangerous I know) and given that everybody lies, I think there is a distinct possibility that the survey is really about something other than its cover story.