Whatever strategy you’re about to suggest, we’ve thought about it. docs.google.com/document/d/1...

Yes, that's on point - very possible that it's related to the fact that the debate is so polarized in the US. It has been long argued that people's perceptions between sci and rel differ between countries/religious affiliations, and now we have empirical evidence for this.

Link to paper here: www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.... (not open access) but the post-print is available here: osf.io/preprints/ps...

..the more religious US participants perceived a more intense conflict between science and religion above and beyond the more secular German participants. So perhaps country-level ≠ individual-level perceptions (?)

We ran DIF analysis comparing Germans (ref) and US Americans (foc) and found an interesting pattern. We found that while a higher level of religiosity was generally associated with higher perceptions of compatibility...

This means that people most likely to agree with statements that closely match their specific preference/viewpoint, not just more compatibility perceptions = more agreement to the items.

...compartment (separate and independent domains), complementary (they fill each other's gaps), and consonance (perfectly compatible/unified). Most importantly, people's responses follow an unfolding response process (Thurstone) rather than dominance response process (Likert).

..that turns out to be *not really* a typology, but rather, categories representing different "regions" on the unidimensional, bipolar conflict-compatibility continuum. We define these regions as; conflict, context-switch (flexible depending on situation)...

"In essence, the study of social psychology is primarily an historical undertaking. We are essentially engaged in a systematic account of contemporary affairs. We utilize scientific methodology, but the results are not scientific principles in the traditional sense.."
psycnet.apa.org/record/1973-...