The correlation between knowledge and attitudes has been the source of controversy in research on the public understanding of science (PUS). Although many studies, both quantitative and qualitative, have examined this issue, the results are at best diverse and at worst contradictory. In this paper, we review the evidence on the relationship between public attitudes and public knowledge about science across 40 countries using a meta-analytic approach. We fit multilevel models to data from 193 nationally representative surveys on PUS carried out since 1989. We find a small positive correlation between general attitudes towards science and general knowledge of scientific facts, after controlling for a range of possible confounding variables. This general relationship varies little across cultures but more substantially between different domains of science and technology. Our results suggest that PUS research needs to focus on understanding the mechanisms that underlie the clear association that exists between knowledge and attitudes about science.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allum, N.C., Boy, D. and Bauer, M.W. (2002) “European Regions and the Knowledge Deficit Model,” in M. Bauer and G. Gaskell (eds) Biotechnology: the Making of a Global Controversy, pp. 224—43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2.
Bauer, M.W., Durant, J. and Evans, G. (1994) “European Public Perceptions of Science,” International Journal of Public Opinion Research6(2): 163—86.
3.
Bishop, G. (2005) The Illusion of Public Opinion: Fact and Artifact in American Public Opinion Polls. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield.
4.
Bryk, A. and Raudenbusch, S. (1992) Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods. London: SAGE.
5.
Cohen, J. (1992) “A Power Primer,” Psychological Bulletin112: 155—9.
6.
Davis, R.C. (1958) “The Public Impact of Science in the Mass Media. A Report on a Nation-wide Survey for the National Association of Science Writers.” Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research, Survey Research Center.
7.
Durant, J., Evans, G. and Thomas, P. (1989) “The Public Understanding of Science,” Nature340(6228): 11—14.
8.
Durant, J., Bauer, M.W., Gaskell, G., Midden, C., Liakopoulos, M. and Scholten, E. (2000) “Two Cultures of Public Understanding of Science and Technology in Europe,” in M. Dierkes and C. von Grote (eds) Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology , pp. 131—56. Amsterdam: Harwood .
9.
Einsiedel, E. (2000) “Understanding `Publics' in the Public Understanding of Science,” in M. Dierkes and C. von Grote (eds) Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology , pp. 205—16. Amsterdam: Harwood .
10.
European Commission (2001) Europeans, Science and Technology. Brussels: European Commission.
11.
Evans, G. and Durant, J. (1995) “The Relationship between Knowledge and Attitudes in the Public Understanding of Science in Britain,” Public Understanding of Science4(1): 57—74.
12.
Gaskell, G., Allum, N.C., Bauer, M.W. and Durant, J. (1999) “Worlds Apart? The Reception of Genetically Modified Foods in Europe and the US,” Science 16 July: 384—7.
13.
Gaskell, G., Allum, N.C., Wagner, W., Hviid Nielsen, T., Jelsoe, E., Kohring, M. and Bauer, M.W. (2001) “In the Public Eye: Representations of Biotechnology in Europe,” in G. Gaskell and M. Bauer (eds) Biotechnology 1996—2000: the Years of Controversy, pp. 53—79. London: Science Museum Publications.
14.
Grimston, M.C. (1994) “Public Opinion Surveys in the UK,” Nuclear Europe Worldscan14(7—8): 98.
15.
Grove-White, R., Macnaghten, P. and Wynne, B. (2000) “Wising Up: the Public and New Technologies ,” Lancaster, Lancaster University , Centre for the Study of Environmental Change (CSEC).
16.
Hayes, B.C. and Tariq, V.N. (2000) “Gender Differences in Scientific Knowledge and Attitudes toward Science: a Comparative Study of Four Anglo-American Nations ,” Public Understanding of Science9(4): 433—47.
17.
Hayes, B.C. and Tariq, V.N. (2001) “Gender Differences in Scientific Knowledge and Attitudes toward Science: a Reply to a Reply,” Public Understanding of Science10(4): 431—3.
18.
Hox, J.J. (2002) Multilevel Analysis: Techniques and Applications . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19.
Inglehart, R. (1990) Culture Shift in Advanced Societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
20.
International Labour Organisation (2001) World Employment Report. Geneva: ILO.
21.
International Research Associates Europe (INRA) ( 1993) Europeans, Science and Technology: Public Understanding and Attitudes. Brussels.
22.
Irwin, A. and Michael, M. (2003) Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
23.
Irwin, A. and Wynne, B. (1996) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24.
Lambert, P. and Abrams, K. (1995) “Meta-analysis Using Multilevel Models,” Multilevel Modelling Newsletter7(2): 16—18.
25.
McBeth, M.K. and Oakes, A.S. (1996) “Citizens' Perceptions of Risks Associated with Moving Radiological Waste,” Risk Analysis16: 421—7.
26.
Martin, S. and Tait, J. (1992) “Attitudes of Selected Public Groups in the U.K. to Biotechnology,” in J. Durant (ed.) Biotechnology in Public: a Review of Recent Research , pp. 28—41. London: Science Museum Publications.
27.
Michael, M. (1996) “Ignoring Science: Discourses of Ignorance in the Public Understanding of Science,” in A. Irwin and B. Wynne (eds) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology , pp. 107—25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28.
Michael, M. (2002) “Comprehension, Apprehension, Prehension: Heterogeneity and the Public Understanding of Science,” Science, Technology & Human Values27(3): 357—8.
29.
Miller, J.D. (1983) “Scientific Literacy: a Conceptual and Empirical Review,” Daedalus11: 29—48.
30.
Miller, J.D. (1998) “The Measurement of Scientific Literacy,” Public Understanding of Science7: 203—23.
31.
Miller, J.D. (2004) “Public Understanding of, and Attitudes toward, Scientific Research: What We Know and What We Need to Know,” Public Understanding of Science13(3): 273—94.
32.
Miller, J.D., Pardo, R. and Niwa, F. (1997) Public Perceptions of Science and Technology: a Comparative Study of the European Union, the United States, Japan and Canada . Bilbao: Fundacion BBV.
33.
Pardo, R. and Calvo, F. (2002) “Attitudes toward Science among the European Public: a Methodological Analysis,” Public Understanding of Science11: 155—95.
34.
Pardo, R. and Calvo, F. (2004) “The Cognitive Dimensions of Public Perceptions of Science: Methodological Issues,” Public Understanding of Science13: 203—27.
35.
Peters, H.P. (2000) “From Information to Attitudes? Thoughts on the Relationship between Knowledge about Science and Technology and Attitudes toward Technology,” in M. Dierkes and C. von Grote (eds) Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology, pp. 265—86. Amsterdam: Harwood.
36.
Priest, S.H. (2001) “Misplaced Faith: Communication Variables as Predictors of Encouragement for Biotechnology Development,” Science Communication23(2): 97—110.
37.
Rasbash, J., Steele, F., Browne, W. and Prosser, B. (2004) A User's Guide to MLwiN Version 2.0. London: Institute of Education.
38.
Rosenthal, R. (1991) Meta-analysis Procedures for Social Research. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
39.
Sterling, T.D., Rosenbaum, W.L. and Weinkam, J.J. (1995) “Publication Decisions Revisited: The Effect of the Outcome of Statistical Tests on the Decision to Publish and Vice Versa ,” American Statistician49(1): 108—12.
40.
Sturgis, P.J. and Allum, N.C. (2000) “The Impact of Knowledge on Attitudes toward Biotechnology: Using Regression Models to Simulate a Better-informed Public ,” Paper presented at the British Psychological Society (Social Psychology Section), Nottingham.
41.
Sturgis, P.J. and Allum, N.C. (2001) “Gender Differences in Scientific Knowledge and Attitudes toward Science: Reply to Hayes and Tariq,” Public Understanding of Science10(4): 427—30.
42.
Sturgis, P.J. and Allum, N.C. (2004) “Science in Society: Re-evaluating the Deficit Model of Public Attitudes,” Public Understanding of Science13(1): 55—74.
43.
Thornton, A. and Lee, P. (2000) “Publication Bias in Meta-analysis: Its Causes and Consequences,” Journal ofClinical Epidemiology53(2): 207.
44.
Withey, S.B. (1959) “Public Opinion about Science and Scientists ,” Public Opinion Quarterly23: 382—8.
45.
Wolf, F.M. (1986) Meta-analysis: Quantitative Methods for Research Synthesis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE .
46.
Wynne, B. (1996) “May the Sheep Safely Graze? A Reflexive View of the Expert-Lay Knowledge Divide,” in S. Lash, B. Szerszynski and B. Wynne (eds) Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology, pp. 44—83. London: SAGE.
47.
Wynne, B. (2001) “Expert Discourses of Risk and Ethics on Genetically Manipulated Organisms: the Weaving of Public Alienation,” Politeia17(62): 51—76.
