2 0.11 0.56 31.0 37.9 31.0 31.0 37.9 0.001 0.08 0.03 0.001 0.05 jasp.12117 0.85 0.002 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 0.004 0.03 0.12 31.0 bc 65.5 28.1b 35.1 34.4b 41.5a 35.8a,b 29.8 35.1 27.2b 28.1a 65.5 62.1 32.8b 34.5b 3.4b 6.9ab 0.42 0.02 0.06 0.76 0.85 0.56 VetTech No PreviousDegree Male Female English Primary LanguageReasoningType CourseArtsMedAnimal PI, median6.9a0.0cMN, median24.1c37.9aUP, median65.58.HumanPI, median35.1a24.6bMN, median28.31.UP, mean36.0a,b 43.6aa,b,cMedians and means with common superscripts do not differ significantly (p>0.05). For parameters tested by Moods Median Test, pairwise comparisons are by Mann-WhitneyTest; for parameters tested by General Linear Model, pairwise comparisons are by Tukey’s Multiple Comparison TestPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0149308 March 2, 2016 Moral Judgment on Animal and Human Ethics Issuesdoi:10.1371/journal.pone.0149308.t8 /Moral Judgment on Animal and Human Ethics IssuesRelationships between combined human and animal scenarios and between Peficitinib supplier individual scenariosAnimal and human scores were correlated within the PI, MN and UP schemas: the correlations coefficients (CC) of the ranked combined animal PI, MN and UP with combined human PI, MN and UP scores, respectively, were as follows: PI CC 0.20, P < 0.001; MN CC 0.17, P < 0.001; UP CC 0.15, P = 0.001. PI, MN and UP scores for animal scenarios were all correlated between scenarios. Within schemas, the moral reasoning scores for the animal euthanasia scenario were highly correlated with those for the pig husbandry and breeding modification scenarios for MN (correlation coefficients CC 0.51, p<0.001 and CC 0.44, p<0.001) and UP (CC 0.56, p<0.001) and CC 0.55, p<0.001). For PI they were less highly correlated: PI (CC 0.19, p<0.001 and CC 0.14, p = 0.001 respectively). The scores for the pig husbandry scenario were also correlated with the breeding modification scenario again more for MN (CC 0.54, p<0.001), and UP (CC 0.59, p<0.001) than for PI (CC 0.27, p<0.001). There were some low but significant correlations between animal and human scenarios. These included the animal euthanasia scores being correlated with famine scores for MN (CC 0.12, p = 0.005) and UP (CC 0.10, p = 0.02) scores, but not PI scores (CC 0.05, p = 0.22), and with the school meeting scenario for PI (CC 0.13, p = 0.002) and UP (CC 0.11, p = 0.013) but not MN scores (CC -0.002, p = 0.96). The reporter scenario was not correlated with the animal j.jebo.2013.04.005 euthanasia scenario. The pig husbandry scenario scores were not correlated with the famine or reporter scenario scores, but were correlated with the school meeting scenario scores for PI (CC 0.12, p = 0.007) and UP (CC 0.13, p = 0.003) but not MN (CC 0.02, p = 0.60). The breeding modification scenario scores were not correlated with the famine, reporter or school board scenarios scores PD98059 chemical information except for the school board UP scores (CC 0.13, p = 0.002). Low correlations between human scenarios included the famine scenario being correlated with the reporter scenario for PI scores (CC 0.20, p<0.001), the school meeting scenario for MN scores (CC 0.12, p = 0.005) and the reporter and school meeting scenarios for UP scores (CC 0.23, p<0.001 and CC 0.10, p = 0.02 respectively). The reporter scenario scores also correlated with the school meeting scenarios for PI (CC 0.10, p = 0.02) and UP scores (CC 0.18, p<0.001) but not MN scores (0.06, p = 0.16).Variation in combined human and animal scenarios and in individual scenariosThere were no significant differenc.2 0.11 0.56 31.0 37.9 31.0 31.0 37.9 0.001 0.08 0.03 0.001 0.05 jasp.12117 0.85 0.002 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 0.004 0.03 0.12 31.0 bc 65.5 28.1b 35.1 34.4b 41.5a 35.8a,b 29.8 35.1 27.2b 28.1a 65.5 62.1 32.8b 34.5b 3.4b 6.9ab 0.42 0.02 0.06 0.76 0.85 0.56 VetTech No PreviousDegree Male Female English Primary LanguageReasoningType CourseArtsMedAnimal PI, median6.9a0.0cMN, median24.1c37.9aUP, median65.58.HumanPI, median35.1a24.6bMN, median28.31.UP, mean36.0a,b 43.6aa,b,cMedians and means with common superscripts do not differ significantly (p>0.05). For parameters tested by Moods Median Test, pairwise comparisons are by Mann-WhitneyTest; for parameters tested by General Linear Model, pairwise comparisons are by Tukey’s Multiple Comparison TestPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0149308 March 2, 2016 Moral Judgment on Animal and Human Ethics Issuesdoi:10.1371/journal.pone.0149308.t8 /Moral Judgment on Animal and Human Ethics IssuesRelationships between combined human and animal scenarios and between individual scenariosAnimal and human scores were correlated within the PI, MN and UP schemas: the correlations coefficients (CC) of the ranked combined animal PI, MN and UP with combined human PI, MN and UP scores, respectively, were as follows: PI CC 0.20, P < 0.001; MN CC 0.17, P < 0.001; UP CC 0.15, P = 0.001. PI, MN and UP scores for animal scenarios were all correlated between scenarios. Within schemas, the moral reasoning scores for the animal euthanasia scenario were highly correlated with those for the pig husbandry and breeding modification scenarios for MN (correlation coefficients CC 0.51, p<0.001 and CC 0.44, p<0.001) and UP (CC 0.56, p<0.001) and CC 0.55, p<0.001). For PI they were less highly correlated: PI (CC 0.19, p<0.001 and CC 0.14, p = 0.001 respectively). The scores for the pig husbandry scenario were also correlated with the breeding modification scenario again more for MN (CC 0.54, p<0.001), and UP (CC 0.59, p<0.001) than for PI (CC 0.27, p<0.001). There were some low but significant correlations between animal and human scenarios. These included the animal euthanasia scores being correlated with famine scores for MN (CC 0.12, p = 0.005) and UP (CC 0.10, p = 0.02) scores, but not PI scores (CC 0.05, p = 0.22), and with the school meeting scenario for PI (CC 0.13, p = 0.002) and UP (CC 0.11, p = 0.013) but not MN scores (CC -0.002, p = 0.96). The reporter scenario was not correlated with the animal j.jebo.2013.04.005 euthanasia scenario. The pig husbandry scenario scores were not correlated with the famine or reporter scenario scores, but were correlated with the school meeting scenario scores for PI (CC 0.12, p = 0.007) and UP (CC 0.13, p = 0.003) but not MN (CC 0.02, p = 0.60). The breeding modification scenario scores were not correlated with the famine, reporter or school board scenarios scores except for the school board UP scores (CC 0.13, p = 0.002). Low correlations between human scenarios included the famine scenario being correlated with the reporter scenario for PI scores (CC 0.20, p<0.001), the school meeting scenario for MN scores (CC 0.12, p = 0.005) and the reporter and school meeting scenarios for UP scores (CC 0.23, p<0.001 and CC 0.10, p = 0.02 respectively). The reporter scenario scores also correlated with the school meeting scenarios for PI (CC 0.10, p = 0.02) and UP scores (CC 0.18, p<0.001) but not MN scores (0.06, p = 0.16).Variation in combined human and animal scenarios and in individual scenariosThere were no significant differenc.
HIV gp120-CD4 gp120-cd4.com
Just another WordPress site
