N = 300 (Cohorts 1–3 combined). Hornik & Woolf (1999) percentage-to-gain analysis across four intermediate belief outcomes. Predictor dichotomy: top response category if positively correlated with the outcome; bottom if negatively correlated. Outcome dichotomies: subscale means use empirical quartile thresholds (≥ P75 for increase outcomes, ≤ P25 for decrease outcomes); single items use the top response category. Ceiling flag: ≥ 60% of sample already at desired predictor position. Constituent items of each outcome excluded as predictors within that tab. Demographics excluded as non-modifiable.


Results

Benefits of govt funding

Outcome: govtfund_5pos_mean — perceived likelihood that government funding produces positive benefits (items 1–5; e.g., researchers have enough resources, results become publicly available). Success threshold: ≥ 75th percentile (score ≥ 4.2). Desired direction: increase.

Top 20

All items

Costs/risks of govt funding

Outcome: govtfund_5neg_mean — perceived likelihood that government funding produces negative consequences (items 6–10; e.g., taxpayer money is wasted, political agendas influence funding). Success threshold: ≤ 25th percentile (score ≤ 2.6). Desired direction: decrease.

Top 20

All items

Trust in higher ed

Outcome: highered_2_mean — trust in private colleges/universities, state public university system, and community colleges (3-item mean). Success threshold: Top of scale (A great deal on all items). Desired direction: increase.

Top 20

All items

Tax benefits you

Outcome: govtfund_8_7 — belief that tax investment in research benefits people like you (single item). Success threshold: Strongly agree (5 of 5). Desired direction: increase.

Top 20

All items

Past Engagement

Included for reference. These items reflect prior behavior rather than modifiable beliefs.

Benefits of govt funding

Costs/risks of govt funding

Trust in higher ed

Tax benefits you