uid=AND,o=lter,dc=ecoinformatics,dc=org all public read SS007 Michael P. Nelson

Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society; 201K Richarson Hall; College of Forestry; Oregon State University Corvallis OR 97331

541-737-9221 mpnelson@oregonstate.edu http://www.michaelpnelson.com http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6917-4752 Chelsea Batavia Chelsea.Batavia@oregonstate.edu ckb523@gmail.com Michael P. Nelson

Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society; 201K Richarson Hall; College of Forestry; Oregon State University Corvallis OR 97331

541-737-9221 mpnelson@oregonstate.edu http://www.michaelpnelson.com http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6917-4752 Principal Investigator Julia A. Jones

Oregon State University;Department of Geosciences; Wilkinson Hall 104 Corvallis OR 97331-5506 USA

(541) 737-1224 Julia.Jones@oregonstate.edu geojulia@comcast.net http://ceoas.oregonstate.edu/profile/jones/ http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9429-8925 Other Researcher Hannah Gosnell

Geosciences;Oregon State University;260 Wilkinson Hall Corvallis OR 97331-5506 USA

541-737-1222 gosnellh@geo.oregonstate.edu http://ceoas.oregonstate.edu/profile/gosnell/ Other Researcher Jeremy T. Bruskotter Bruskotter.9@osu.edu Other Researcher John A. Vucetich javuceti@mtu.edu Other Researcher Michael P. Nelson

Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society; 201K Richarson Hall; College of Forestry; Oregon State University Corvallis OR 97331

541-737-9221 mpnelson@oregonstate.edu http://www.michaelpnelson.com http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6917-4752 Creator Chelsea Batavia Chelsea.Batavia@oregonstate.edu ckb523@gmail.com Creator 2019-04-11 This dataset records survey data collected from an online panel of 1,331 anonymous, nationwide U.S respondents. Data collection was both initiated and completed in August 2017. Survey data is of two major types. The first type, information about respondents, includes (1) select background and demographic information; (2) a brief version of a social desirability scale, measured to test and control for potential bias related to socially desirable responding; and (3) a scale developed to measure moral inclusivity, conceptualized as the breadth of an individual’s moral community (i.e., to what extent do different types of entities “count,” in a moral sense). The second type of data records information about an experimental message manipulation featured in the survey. The dataset includes one variable indicating which of seven manipulated textual messages each respondent viewed, along with several variables used as metrics of response to the messages, including (1) attitudes toward the message; (2) hypothetical willingness to donate for the cause promoted in the message; (3) perceived moral salience of the message (i.e., the extent to which it was perceived as a matter of moral concern); (4) manipulation checks, to test whether the manipulated elements of the messages were perceived as intended, and (5) a donation set-up, in which individuals were given the option to donate between $0 and $5 for a conservation organization, from an incentive fee provided by the researchers. conservation LTER controlled vocabulary attitudes and perceptions environmental ethics public assessments public values Andrews Experimental Forest site thesaurus National Science Foundation, award # 1725530 National Science Foundation Long-Term Ecological Research Program at the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest, DEB 1440409Related FilesTitle: Survey InstrumentDescription: survey questionnaire and labels linking questions to variable codesURL: https://andrewsforest.oregonstate.edu/data/studies/ss007/Survey_Instrument.pdf Data Use Agreement: The re-use of scientific data has the potential to greatly increase communication, collaboration and synthesis within and among disciplines, and thus is fostered, supported and encouraged. This Data Set is released under the Creative Commons license CC BY "Attribution" (see: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Creative Commons license CC BY - Attribution is a license that allows others to distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work (even commercially), as long as you are credited for the original creation. This license accommodates maximum dissemination and use of licensed materials. It is considered professional conduct and an ethical obligation to acknowledge the work of other scientists. The Data User is asked to provide attribution of the original work if this data package is shared in whole or by individual parts or used in the derivation of other products. A recommended citation is provided for each Data Set in the Andrews LTER data catalog (see: http://andlter.forestry.oregonstate.edu/data/catalog/datacatalog.aspx). A generic citation is also provided for this Data Set on the website https://portal.edirepository.org in the summary metadata page. Data Users are thus strongly encouraged to consider consultation, collaboration and/or co-authorship with the Data Set Creator. While substantial efforts are made to ensure the accuracy of data and associated documentation, complete accuracy of data sets cannot be guaranteed and all data are made available "as is." The Data User should be aware, however, that data are updated periodically and it is the responsibility of the Data User to check for new versions of the data. The data authors and the repository where these data were obtained shall not be liable for damages resulting from any use or misinterpretation of the data. General acknowledgement: Data were provided by the HJ Andrews Experimental Forest research program, funded by the National Science Foundation's Long-Term Ecological Research Program (DEB 2025755), US Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, and Oregon State University. None. Data are anonymized and study has been approved by Oregon State University’s Institutional Review Board (Study ID 8136) http://andlter.forestry.oregonstate.edu/data/abstract.aspx?dbcode=SS007 2017-08-18 2017-08-25 The first and primary objective of this study was to investigate whether people report stronger support for the cause of conservation (as measured by attitudes, hypothetical donations, and donations) when they are approached with an outreach message suggesting nature conservation is good for humans; good for nonhumans; or good for both humans and nonhumans. Data were collected to inform a current debate in the conservation community about ethical motivations for conservation and effective strategies for winning social support. A secondary objective was to test whether commonly observed and politically conditioned patterns of response to messages highlighting different clusters of moral foundations (individualizing or binding; see Methods) are also observed in the context of persuasive communications for conservation. This more theoretical objective served practical purposes as well, by controlling for a message variable (moral foundation) that may have otherwise confounded results related to objective one.

An update history is logged and maintained with each new version of every dataset.

notPlanned Study code and preliminary metadata established Version1 2016-12-08 Imported dataset, ran QC and uploaded to SQL. Version3 2019-04-11 Information Manager

Andrews Forest LTER Program US Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station 3200 SW Jefferson Way Corvallis OR 97331

hjaweb@fsl.orst.edu http://andrewsforest.oregonstate.edu/ Andrews Forest LTER Site

Forest Ecosystems and Society Department in Forestry Oregon State University 201K Richardson Hall Corvallis OR 97331-5752

(541) 737-8480 lterweb@fsl.orst.edu http://andrewsforest.oregonstate.edu/ Field Methods - SS007 The survey was designed using the online application Qualtrics, and administered to an online panel of nationwide U.S. respondents. Online panels are comprised of individuals who contract with an organization or corporate entity (in this case, Qualtrics, LLC) to complete surveys for research, marketing, or other analytics purposes, in return for compensation. The survey was administered by a designated management team at Qualtrics, LLC. The sampling procedure was stratified to capture a roughly even admixture of self-identified liberals and conservatives. Panelists were emailed a link to a new survey. If they followed the link, they were directed to the first page of the survey, which asked for consent to participate in a research study. By proceeding to the next page respondents signified their consent. Once the targeted sample size had been achieved, the survey was closed to additional respondents. To measure donation we employed a procedure documented by Clements et al. (2015). Respondents were told they would receive $5, in addition to their normal panelist earnings, and were offered the opportunity to designate some proportion of the $5 as a donation. After choosing to donate (or not), respondents viewed a de-debrief page informing them that their donations had been recorded as data, a detail that had been withheld from the initial consent document so as to render the donation decision context as naturalistic as possible. Because of the minor deception, in accordance with standards stipulated by the Oregon State University Institutional Review Board, respondents were offered the opportunity to withdraw their data from the sample without forfeiting payments owed to them. Data from respondents who chose to withdraw (N = 269) are not included in the dataset. Upon completion respondents were thanked for their participation and payment was issued according to their contracted arrangement with Qualtrics, LLC. The research team calculated additional payments owed to respondents from the donation incentive (see “experimental design”), and these payments were issued to panelists by Qualtrics, LLC. Quality Assurance - SS007 Several attention check questions were included to ensure respondents were actually reading and responding to the survey items. Attention checks followed this or a similar format: “If you are reading this question, please mark your response 1, Strongly Disagree.” Only survey responses from individuals who entered the correct numbers on these items were retained in the dataset. Survey responses with missing cell values (e.g., if an individual chose not to respond to certain survey items) were not included in the final dataset. In addition, data were assessed for quality concerns by comparing each response time to the median response time for the total sample. Individuals whose response time fell outside a reasonable margin of the median time were individually examined for patterns suggesting unreflective or automatic responses. Where strong evidence pointed to poor data quality, those responses were removed from the dataset. Data Entry - SS007 Survey responses were recorded directly in an online database, with respondents labeled by unique Qualtrics identifiers. The Qualtrics application automatically compiles data in spreadsheet form and makes it accessible for download by the survey owner in a variety of formats (Excel, SPSS, etc.). Following completion of data collection, additional respondent demographic information was appended to survey data by the Qualtrics management team from information housed in panelists’ Qualtrics user profiles. This information was matched to panel respondents by the Qualtrics management team using unique study identifiers. No personally identifiable information about panel respondents was available to the research team at any time. Sampling frequency: one discrete time period Each study participant was randomly assigned to view one of seven experimentally manipulated messages. In a 3 x 2 factorial design, each flyer featured a verbal message that varied systematically along two experimental factors: beneficiary (who benefits from conservation), and moral foundation (in what sense is conservation presented as a moral issue (Graham et al. 2011). Beneficiaries were either (1) only human; (2) only nonhuman; or (3) both human and nonhuman. Moral foundations were either (1) individualizing (presenting conservation as an issue of care/avoidance of harm and fairness); or (2) binding (presenting conservation as an issue of duty, community loyalty, and the sanctity of nature). The seventh flyer was a control, which did not emphasize specific beneficiaries or moral foundations. Other aspects of the messages (e.g., grammatical structure, length) were kept consistent to the extent possible, and the image depicted in the flyers was held constant across all seven messages. The goal of the message manipulation was to test differences between treatment groups for several response variables, including attitudes, hypothetical donation, moral salience (all measured with survey questions), and donation (measured according to a procedure described in “Field methods”). Citation: Graham, J., Nosek, B.A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., and Ditto, P.H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 101: 366-385. doi: 10.1037/a0021847

Several attention check questions were included to ensure respondents were actually reading and responding to the survey items. Attention checks followed this or a similar format: “If you are reading this question, please mark your response 1, Strongly Disagree.” Only survey responses from individuals who entered the correct numbers on these items were retained in the dataset. Survey responses with missing cell values (e.g., if an individual chose not to respond to certain survey items) were not included in the final dataset. In addition, data were assessed for quality concerns by comparing each response time to the median response time for the total sample. Individuals whose response time fell outside a reasonable margin of the median time were individually examined for patterns suggesting unreflective or automatic responses. Where strong evidence pointed to poor data quality, those responses were removed from the dataset.

Sherri L. Johnson

US Forest Service ;Pacific NW Research Station ;3200 SW Jefferson Way Corvallis OR 97331 USA

541-758-7771 sherri.johnson2@usda.gov sherri.johnson@oregonstate.edu https://www.fs.fed.us/research/people/profile.php?alias=sherrijohnson Principal Investigator Julia A. Jones

Oregon State University;Department of Geosciences; Wilkinson Hall 104 Corvallis OR 97331-5506 USA

(541) 737-1224 Julia.Jones@oregonstate.edu geojulia@comcast.net http://ceoas.oregonstate.edu/profile/jones/ http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9429-8925 Principal Investigator Matthew G Betts

Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society; 201E Richardson Hall; College of Forestry; Oregon State University Corvallis OR 97331

(541) 737-3841 matt.betts@oregonstate.edu http://www.fsl.orst.edu/flel/index.htm Principal Investigator Michael P. Nelson

Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society; 201K Richarson Hall; College of Forestry; Oregon State University Corvallis OR 97331

541-737-9221 mpnelson@oregonstate.edu http://www.michaelpnelson.com http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6917-4752 Principal Investigator David Bell david.bell@usda.gov david.bell@oregonstate.edu https://lemma.forestry.oregonstate.edu/about/david-bell Principal Investigator The H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest is a living laboratory that provides unparalleled opportunities for the study of forest and stream ecosystems in the central Cascade Range of Oregon. Since 1980, as a part of the National Science Foundation Long Term Ecological Research (NSF-LTER) program, the Andrews Experimental Forest has become a leader in the analysis of forest and stream ecosystem dynamics. Long-term field experiments and measurement programs have focused on climate dynamics, streamflow, water quality, and vegetation succession. Currently researchers are working to develop concepts and tools needed to predict effects of natural disturbance, land use, and climate change on ecosystem structure, function, and species composition. The Andrews Experimental Forest is administered cooperatively by the USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, Oregon State University and the Willamette National Forest. Funding for the research program comes from the National Science Foundation (NSF), US Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, Oregon State University, and other sources. Data were provided by the HJ Andrews Experimental Forest research program, funded by the National Science Foundation's Long-Term Ecological Research Program (DEB 2025755), US Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, and Oregon State University. National Science Foundation: DEB1440409 The Andrews Forest is situated in the western Cascade Range of Oregon, and covers the entire 15,800-acre (6400-ha) drainage basin of Lookout Creek. Elevation ranges from 1350 to 5340 feet (410 to 1630 m). Broadly representative of the rugged mountainous landscape of the Pacific Northwest, the Andrews Forest contains excellent examples of the region's conifer forests and associated wildlife and stream ecosystems. These forests are among the tallest and most productive in the world, with tree heights of often greater than 250 ft (75 m). Streams are steep, cold and clean, providing habitat for numerous aquatic organisms. 1 SS00701 Survey data from non-representative online panel of American public in August 2017 (N = 1331).: SS00701.csv 276146 02354208da395aacfae625e56f73d877 1 \r\n column , " http://andlter.forestry.oregonstate.edu/ltermeta/ltersearch/dataaccess.aspx?docid=SS00701_v1.csv 2017-08-18 2017-08-25 DBCODE FSDB Database Code char(5) SS007 FSDB Database Study Code ENTITY Entity number numeric(2,0) number 1 natural 1.0000 1.0000 QUALTRICSID Unique respondent identifier numeric(4,0) number 1 natural 1.0000 1331.0000 TIME Total time used to complete survey (milliseconds) numeric(5,0) number of seconds of time 1 natural 221.0000 50378.0000 GEND Self-identified respondent gender char(1) 1 Female 2 Male AGE Respondent age numeric(2,0) number of years 1 natural 18.0000 97.0000 AGE_RANGE Respondent age, binned by range char(1) 1 18-24 2 25-34 3 35-44 4 45-54 5 55-64 6 65-74 7 75-84 8 85 and above INCO Respondent annual household income char(2) 1 Less than 15,000 2 15,000 to 24,999 3 25,000 to 49,999 4 50,000 to 74,999 5 75,000 to 99,999 6 100,000 to 149,999 7 150,000 to 199,999 8 200,000 to 249,999 9 250,000 or more 99 Prefer not to answer EDU Respondent highest level of education achieved char(2) 1 Incomplete Secondary (high school) Education 2 Secondary (high school) education 3 Some College, University, Technical School or Further Education 4 Associate’s Degree 5 Vocational or Technical Degree 6 Bachelor’s Degree 7 Master’s Degree 8 Doctoral or Professional Degree (PhD, Ed.D, JD, DVM, DO, MD, DDS, or similar) 99 Prefer not to answer RACE Self-identified respondent race/ethnicity char(2) 1 African American / Black 2 Asian / Asian American 3 Caucasian / White 4 Native American, Inuit or Aleut 5 Other 6 Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander 99 Prefer not to answer ORG_DON In the past year I have donated money to an environmental organization. char(1) 1 Yes 2 No 3 Unsure ORG_VOL In the past year I have volunteered for an environmental organization. char(1) 1 Yes 2 No 3 Unsure ENV_ID I consider myself an environmentalist. char(1) 1 Yes 2 No 3 Unsure INATT_CON I think nature conservation is important. char(1) 1 Yes 2 No 3 Unsure POL_OR How do you self-identify politically? char(1) 1 Strongly conservative 2 Moderately conservative 3 Slightly conservative 4 Neutral/centrist 5 Slightly liberal 6 Moderately liberal 7 Strongly liberal 8 Libertarian 9 Other REL How religious are you? char(1) 1 Not at all religious 2 Somewhat religious 3 Very religious 4 Prefer not to say SODES_1 It is sometimes hard for me to go on with my work is I am not encouraged. char(1) 1 T 2 F SODES_2 I sometimes feel resentful when I don’t get my way. char(1) 1 T 2 F SODES_3 On a few occasions, I have given up doing something because I thought too little of my ability. char(1) 1 T 2 F SODES_4 There have been times when I felt like rebelling against people in authority even though I knew they were right. char(1) 1 T 2 F SODES_5 No matter who I’m talking to, I’m always a good listener. char(1) 1 T 2 F SODES_6 There have been occasions when I took advantage of someone. char(1) 1 T 2 F SODES_7 I’m always willing to admit it when I make a mistake. char(1) 1 T 2 F SODES_8 I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget. char(1) 1 T 2 F SODES_9 I am always courteous, even to people who are disagreeable. char(1) 1 T 2 F SODES_10 I have never been irked when people expressed ideas very different from my own. char(1) 1 T 2 F SODES_11 There have been times when I was quite jealous of the good fortune of others. char(1) 1 T 2 F SODES_12 I am sometimes irritated by people who ask favors of me. char(1) 1 T 2 F SODES_13 I have never deliberately said something that hurt someone’s feelings. char(1) 1 T 2 F MINC1_A1 Every person has value above and beyond his or her usefulness for others. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC2_A2 In general, I would say human suffering is a moral issue. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC3_A3 As a basic principle, people ought to demonstrate respect for other individual people. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC4_Z1 The wellbeing of an individual animal matters, even if it does not affect the wellbeing of people. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC5_Z2 Every individual animal possesses a dignity that deserves respect. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC6_B1 The wellbeing of individual plants is not a matter of moral concern to me. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC7_B2 Every plant deserves respect as a living creature. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC8_E1 People have a moral obligation to consider how their decisions might harm or benefit a species, even if the species has no apparent use. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC9_E2 It makes no sense to talk about respecting a species. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC10_E3 When people cause the extinction of a species, they have committed a moral wrong against the species. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC11_E4 People have a moral obligation to consider how their decisions might harm or benefit an ecosystem, even if the ecosystem has no apparent use. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC12_E5 It makes no sense to talk about respecting an ecosystem. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC13_E6 When people cause the loss of an ecosystem, they have committed a moral wrong against the ecosystem. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC14_Z3 If I had mice nesting in my walls, I would feel some guilt for exterminating them. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC15_Z4 If I found a spider inside my house, I would hesitate to kill it. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC16_B3 If I were weeding a garden, I would feel some remorse for killing the weeds. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC17_B4 It is appropriate to feel grateful to the fruits and vegetables we eat. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC18_A4 If I had to decide whether or not to do something that would harm myself, I would be making a moral decision. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC19_A5 If I had to decide whether or not to do something that would harm my family, I would be making a moral decision. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC20_A6 If I had to decide whether or not to do something that would harm Americans, I would be making a moral decision. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC21_A7 If I had to decide whether or not to do something that would harm people in other countries, I would be making a moral decision. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC22_Z5 If I had to decide whether or not to do something that would harm a dog, I would be making a moral decision. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC23_Z6 If I had to decide whether or not to do something that would harm a bald eagle, I would be making a moral decision. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC24_Z7 If I had to decide whether or not to do something that would harm a cow, I would be making a moral decision. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC25_Z8 If I had to decide whether or not to do something that would harm a cougar, I would be making a moral decision. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC26_Z9 If I had to decide whether or not to do something that would harm a fly, I would be making a moral decision. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC27_B5 If I had to decide whether or not to do something that would harm a houseplant, I would be making a moral decision. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC28_B6 If I had to decide whether or not to do something that would harm an oak tree, I would be making a moral decision. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC29_B7 If I had to decide whether or not to do something that would harm a fungus, I would be making a moral decision. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC30_B8 If I had to decide whether or not to do something that would harm a poison ivy plant, I would be making a moral decision. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC31_E7 If I had to decide whether or not to do something that would harm an endangered species of elephant, I would be making a moral decision. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC32_E8 If I had to decide whether or not to do something that would harm a local species of mosquito, I would be making a moral decision. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC33_E9 If I had to decide whether or not to do something that would harm a tropical rainforest ecosystem, I would be making a moral decision. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC34_E10 If I had to decide whether or not to do something that would harm an agricultural ecosystem, I would be making a moral decision. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC35_Z10 A dog has value above and beyond any use it may serve for others. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC36_Z11 A bald eagle has value above and beyond any use it may serve for others. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC37_Z12 A cow has value above and beyond any use it may serve for others. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC38_Z13 A cougar has value above and beyond any use it may serve for others. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC39_Z14 A fly has value above and beyond any use it may serve for others. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC40_B9 A houseplant has value above and beyond any use it may serve for others. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC41_B10 An oak tree has value above and beyond any use it may serve for others. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC42_B11 A fungus has value above and beyond any use it may serve for others. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC43_B12 A poison ivy plant has value above and beyond any use it may serve for others. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC44_E11 An endangered species of elephant has value above and beyond any use it may serve for others. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC45_E12 A local species of mosquito has value above and beyond any use it may serve for others. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC46_E13 A tropical rainforest ecosystem has value above and beyond any use it may serve for others. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MINC47_E14 An agricultural ecosystem has value above and beyond any use it may serve for others. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree TRT_CAT Treatment received by respondent (see related file <Survey Instrument>) char(1) 1 Human binding 2 Human individualizing 3 Nonhuman binding 4 Nonhuman individualizing 5 Combined binding 6 Combined individualizing 7 Control TRT_ATT1 The cause promoted in this flyer is worthy of support. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree TRT_ATT2 The cause promoted in this flyer is important. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree TRT_ATT3 I find the message in this flyer persuasive. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MOSA_1 The message in this flyer makes me think about right and wrong. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MOSA_2 The message in this flyer makes me think about my moral responsibilities. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MOSA_3 The message in this flyer reflects my core moral beliefs. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree HYDON1 If this were an outreach message asking you to support a real conservation organization, would you donate money to that organization right now? char(1) 2 Would not hypothetically donate 1 Would hypothetically donate HYDON2 If you answered “yes” to the question above, how much would you be willing to donate? (US Dollars) numeric(7,2) number 1 real 1.0000 20000.0000 HYDON3 Denotes what sort of value was entered for hypothetical amount char(1) 0 Zero 1 Discrete positive numerical value 2 Numerical value range 3 Question mark 4 Verbal written response MC1_MFI1 This message is about trying to avoid harm. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MC2_MFI2 This message is about fairness. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MC3_MFB1 This message is about tradition. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MC4_MFB2 This message is about community. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MC5_MWH This message expresses concern for people. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MC6_MWNH This message expresses concern for non-human beings (like animals or plants). char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree MC7_EMO I have a strong emotional response to this message. char(1) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither disagree nor agree 5 Somewhat agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree DON Amount of money donated (US dollars) numeric(7,2) number 1 real 0.0100 5.0000 DON2 Indicates whether the person made a donation char(1) 0 Did not make donation 1 Made donation PRIMARY SS00701.QUALTRICSID NOTNULL SS00701.AGE SS00701.AGE_RANGE SS00701.DBCODE SS00701.DON SS00701.DON2 SS00701.EDU SS00701.ENTITY SS00701.ENV_ID SS00701.GEND SS00701.HYDON1 SS00701.HYDON3 SS00701.INATT_CON SS00701.INCO SS00701.MC1_MFI1 SS00701.MC2_MFI2 SS00701.MC3_MFB1 SS00701.MC4_MFB2 SS00701.MC5_MWH SS00701.MC6_MWNH SS00701.MC7_EMO SS00701.MINC10_E3 SS00701.MINC11_E4 SS00701.MINC12_E5 SS00701.MINC13_E6 SS00701.MINC14_Z3 SS00701.MINC15_Z4 SS00701.MINC16_B3 SS00701.MINC17_B4 SS00701.MINC18_A4 SS00701.MINC19_A5 SS00701.MINC1_A1 SS00701.MINC20_A6 SS00701.MINC21_A7 SS00701.MINC22_Z5 SS00701.MINC23_Z6 SS00701.MINC24_Z7 SS00701.MINC25_Z8 SS00701.MINC26_Z9 SS00701.MINC27_B5 SS00701.MINC28_B6 SS00701.MINC29_B7 SS00701.MINC2_A2 SS00701.MINC30_B8 SS00701.MINC31_E7 SS00701.MINC32_E8 SS00701.MINC33_E9 SS00701.MINC34_E10 SS00701.MINC35_Z10 SS00701.MINC36_Z11 SS00701.MINC37_Z12 SS00701.MINC38_Z13 SS00701.MINC39_Z14 SS00701.MINC3_A3 SS00701.MINC40_B9 SS00701.MINC41_B10 SS00701.MINC42_B11 SS00701.MINC43_B12 SS00701.MINC44_E11 SS00701.MINC45_E12 SS00701.MINC46_E13 SS00701.MINC47_E14 SS00701.MINC4_Z1 SS00701.MINC5_Z2 SS00701.MINC6_B1 SS00701.MINC7_B2 SS00701.MINC8_E1 SS00701.MINC9_E2 SS00701.MOSA_1 SS00701.MOSA_2 SS00701.MOSA_3 SS00701.ORG_DON SS00701.ORG_VOL SS00701.POL_OR SS00701.QUALTRICSID SS00701.RACE SS00701.REL SS00701.SODES_1 SS00701.SODES_10 SS00701.SODES_11 SS00701.SODES_12 SS00701.SODES_13 SS00701.SODES_2 SS00701.SODES_3 SS00701.SODES_4 SS00701.SODES_5 SS00701.SODES_6 SS00701.SODES_7 SS00701.SODES_8 SS00701.SODES_9 SS00701.TIME SS00701.TRT_ATT1 SS00701.TRT_ATT2 SS00701.TRT_ATT3 SS00701.TRT_CAT 1331 one year excluding leap seconds and leap days, 31536000 seconds (often used for age in years) dimensionless number, i.e., ratio, count SI unit of time; sixtieth part of a minute of time