As you wrote above, many questionnaires are manipulated by the very wording of the questions that are asked, not by the wording of the scenarios.
I simply changed the teams that were playing, but I didnt move the goal posts, if I had changed the questions at the same time as the scenario we wouldnt even be playing the same game. And likewise the reason why I didnt just ask those questions outright, but asked them as a specific response to 2 different scenarios was to give everyone the same playing field to start with, if I had not the answers would have been skewed by peoples imaginations.
Lets analyse your answers as an example.
On Area 1, scenario 1, you score a 17 (A = 1, B = 2, C = 3, D = 4), there is a minimum score of 5, and a maximum score of 20. The midway point is 12.5, so therefore 12 is a weak agree, and 13 is a weak disagree overall.
Your score is 4.5 higher than the midway point, and 3 short of the highest level of disagreement. On area 1, scenario 2, your scvore changes to an 18.5 which puts you pretty close to the strongest of disagreements.
So you go from a 17 to an 18.5, your answers dont change a whole lot between the 2 different scenarios, so therefore it seems that you dont think there is a really big difference between those 2 different scenarios, others would disagree.
At the other end of the scale is Cov, who in A1 S1 scores just 8, just 3 points off of the strongest agree, but scores just 2 more points in the direction of disagree in A1 S2.
So as you see, it is not just the strength of individual answers, but the difference of answers given when the scenario changes.
Judge's scores, A1 S1 = 12, A1 S2 = 17, a difference of 5.
My score, A1 S1 = 8, A1 S2 = 12, a difference of 4.
Also note that the answers for Q5/Q10 (would (do) you treat your children in such a manner) from everyone are, D, D, C, B/C, D, D, D, D.
This is interesting because it seems to be the question that we have all given the closest answers on. With the exception of Spook who has still not decided on a B or a C for Q10 we ALL disagree. But we do ALL disagree on Q5. (i.e. we all answered the same to varying degrees).
That is a very specific scenario, and a question that has us all in agreement to disagree, so it seems that I was right when I said that even on opposing sides of this subject there are points that everyone has the same viewpoint on.
One thing I have noticed so far (although with a very limited data set (4 people makes is very far from perfect), 3 people from the UK, 1 person from (Unknown) seems to split us into 2 obvious groups, and I cant help but to notice that the UK camp has very differing views RE: Area 1, make of that what you will.
Everyone, please feel free to do your own analysis while I am shooting people in BF2, having lunch, and then watching some football in the pub.
What puzzles me, is that both judge56988 and andyb have switched their answers from a strong no to a mild yes, or a mild no to strong yes in some occasions. This makes no sense to me.
I don't know how you can switch yes and no just based on the severity of upbringing/environment. Upbringing will have results, be it mild or severe, but these results can never go from "slightly influenced" to "not at all" (or from "severely influenced" to "not that much").
This would be a weird curve in influence.
Feel free to analyse and think about that, but in the mean time, here is my answer. Some questions overpower others (you could easily say they have a higher value than others), and by simply changing the scenario, the severity of a question (and the given answer) can affect another question a great deal.
e.g. Q14 and Q19, (she wears it because it identifies her as a muslim more than a headscarf would, and she wants to be identified as a muslim by all ).
My answers changed from an A to a D, the reason why I changed my answer that much is very simple and straight forward.
She was brainwashed by brainwashed parents, to the extent that she simply MUST wear that thing, wheras in the second scenario, she has not been brainwashed, and has had a moderate religious ubringing, she probably wears a headscarf, she doesnt need to identify herself in any stronger way at all, after all if the headscarf is there to show alliegance and identify your religious beliefs then it stands to reason that the stronger your beliefs the more you have to show it. A christian might wear a cross (typically hidden, small, and made of gold), a hardcore christian might wear a large visible wooden cross.
The result will be that the outcome will be lopsided and far from a neutral reference point. You are directing the result into a certain direction.
I dont believe I am, everyone who wants to play has 4 possible answers to each question (I dont belive that giving people middle ground (a nuetral answer) is right, as it gives people the option to simply not answer (such as answering B/C). If your answer is agree but only barely, then you still agree. The whole concept of giving a neutral answer option is misguided in that if someone cant decide, cant be bothered to decide, or doesnt want their answer to be known (for fear of taking sides) then they simply have NOT answered that question.
So, giving people the option of a neutral answer wont make the answers lopsided, it will make them accurate. But as you have seen in giving the answers "points" you can barely agree/disagree (12/13 points) across 5 questions. If I had only have given 2 answers, agree or disagree then yes it would be skewed, I could have given the option of 6 answers, adding in slightly agree/disagree, but the line has to be drawn somewhere, and I have already drawn it, and will not re-draw it. Please can you decide on your B/C (or A / D).