This study presents a systematic comparison of two alternative measures of citizens’ perceptions of risks and benefits of emerging technologies. By focusing on two specific issues (nanotechnology and biofuels), we derive several insights for the measurement of public views of science. Most importantly, our analyses reveal that relying on global, single-item measures may lead to invalid inferences regarding external influences on public perceptions, particularly those related to cognitive schema and media use. Beyond these methodological implications, this analysis suggests several reasons why researchers in the area of public attitudes toward science must revisit notions of measurement in order to accurately inform the general public, policymakers, scientists, and journalists about trends in public opinion toward emerging technologies.
AAPOR (2009) Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys, 6th edn.Lenexa, KS: AAPOR (American Association for Public Opinion Research).
2.
AjzenI (2001) Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology52: 27–58.
3.
AjzenIFishbeinM (2008) Scaling and testing multiplicative combinations in the expectancy-value model of attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology38(9): 2222–2247.
4.
BabbieE (2007) The Practice of Social Research, 11th edn.Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
5.
BrehmJ (1993) The Phantom Respondents: Opinion Surveys and Political Representation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
6.
Brigham SchmuhlNCacciatoreMABinderARShawBRScheufeleDA (2010) Technological innovation in America’s backyard: The intersection of media use, political partisanship, and public opinion of biofuels. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, MayChicago, IL.
7.
BrossardDNisbetMC (2007) Deference to scientific authority among a low-information public: Understanding U.S. opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research19(1): 24–52.
8.
BrossardDShanahanJ (2007) Perspectives on communication about agricultural biotechnology. In: BrossardDShanahanJNesbittTC (eds) The Public, the Media, and Agricultural Biotechnology: An International Casebook. Cambridge, MA: CABI, 3–20.
9.
BrossardDScheufeleDAKimELewensteinBV (2009) Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science18(5): 546–558.
10.
CacciatoreMAScheufeleDACorleyEA (in press) From enabling technology to applications: The evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science. doi: 10.1177/0963662509347815
11.
CarminesEGZellerRA (1979) Reliability and Validity Assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
ChaffeeSH (1991) Explication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
13.
CobbMDMacoubrieJ (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research6(4): 395–405.
Crne-HladnikHPeklajCKosmeljKHladnikAJavornikB (2009) Assessment of Slovene secondary school students’ attitudes to biotechnology in terms of usefulness, moral acceptability and risk perception. Public Understanding of Science18(6): 747–758.
16.
CronbachLJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika16(3): 297–334
17.
EaglyAHChaikenS (1993) The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
18.
FishkinJS (1991) Democracy and Deliberation. New Haven: Yale University Press.
19.
FlynnJSlovicPMertzCK (1994) Gender, race, and perception of environmental-health risks. Risk Analysis14(6): 1101–1108.
20.
FriedmanSMDunwoodySRogersCL (1999) Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
21.
GilovichT (1991) How We Know What Isn’t So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life. New York: Free Press.
22.
IrwinA (2001) Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science10(1): 1–18.
23.
KahanDMBramanDSlovicPGastilJCohenG (2009) Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology4(2): 87–90.
24.
KleinmanDLDelborneJAAndersonAA (in press) Engaging citizens: The high cost of citizen participation in high technology. Public Understanding of Science. doi:10.1177/0963662509347137
25.
KlopTSeveriensS (2007) An exploration of attitudes towards modern biotechnology: A study among Dutch secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education29(5): 663–679.
26.
LeeCJScheufeleDALewensteinBV (2005) Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: Examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Science Communication27(2): 240–267.
27.
McLeodJMPanZ (2005) Concept explication and theory construction. In: DunwoodySBeckerLBMcLeodDMKosickiGM (eds) The Evolution of Key Mass Communication Concepts: Honoring Jack M. McLeod. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 13–76.
28.
MillerJD (2004) Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science13(3): 273–294.
29.
NisbetMCMooneyC (2007) Science and society: Framing science. Science316(5821): 56.
30.
PardoRCalvoF (2002) Attitudes toward science among the European public: A methodological analysis. Public Understanding of Science11(2): 155–195.
31.
PowellMKleinmanDL (2008) Building citizen capacities for participation in nanotechnology decision-making: The democratic virtues of the consensus conference model. Public Understanding of Science17(3): 329–348.
32.
RoweGFrewerLJ (2005) A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology and Human Values30(2): 251–290.
33.
ScheufeleDA (2006) Messages and heuristics: How audiences form attitudes about emerging technologies. In: TurneyJ (ed.) Engaging Science: Thoughts, Deeds, Analysis and Action. London: The Wellcome Trust, 20–25.
34.
ScheufeleDATewksburyD (2007) Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication57(1): 9–20.
35.
SchumanHPresserS (1981) Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments on Question Form, Wording, and Context. New York: Academic Press.
36.
SlovicP (1987) Perception of risk. Science236: 280.
37.
SudmanSBradburnNMSchwarzN (1995) Thinking about Answers: The Application of Cognitive Processes to Survey Methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
38.
TankardJW (1976) Reporting and scientific method. In: McCombsMEShawDGreyD (eds) Handbook of Reporting Methods. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 42–77.
39.
TourangeauRRipsLJRasinskiKA (2000) The Psychology of Survey Response. New York: Cambridge University Press.
40.
TverskyAKahnemanD (1973) Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology5(2): 207–232.
41.
von HoffmanN (1980) Public opinion polls: Newspapers making their own news. Public Opinion Quarterly44(3): 572–573.
42.
WegenerDTKellyJR (2008) Social psychological dimensions of bioenergy development and public acceptance. Bioenergy Research1(2): 107–117.
43.
WooldridgeJM (2003) Introductory Econometrics. Mason, OH: South-Western College Publishing.
44.
ZallerJFeldmanS (1992) A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science36(3): 579–616.
