Survey data on 1217 adults living in Alberta, Canada were collected by Ipsos Reid Public Affairs and made available to us for analysis. The survey questioned participants on issues related to science including their perceived knowledge of science, attitudes toward science, and trust in science and technology. We developed a structural equation model to account for the causal relations implied by the correlations among the variables in the data set. Results show that trust in generalized science and technology is a large determiner of trust in specific technologies, but that trust in specific technologies is not a determinant of overall trust in science and technology. We also found that attitudes towards science have an effect on trust in generalized science and technology whereas perceived knowledge does not. Education and gender contribute to attitudes supporting an increased personal attachment to science, which was the strongest predictor of trust in our model.
AlbaJWHutchinsonJW (2000) Knowledge calibration: What consumers know and what they think they know. Journal of Consumer Research27: 123–156.
2.
AllumN (2007) An empirical test of competing theories of trust: The case of GM food. Risk Analysis27: 935–946.
3.
BarnettJCooperHSeniorV (2007) Belief in public efficacy, trust, and attitudes toward modern genetic science. Risk Analysis27: 921–933.
4.
BatesSRFaulknerWParrySCunningham-BurleyS (2010) “How do we know it’s not been done yet?!” Trust, trust building and regulation in stem cell research. Science and Public Policy37: 703–718.
5.
BauerMW (1996) Socio-demographic correlates of DK-responses in knowledge surveys: Self-attributed ignorance of science. Social Science Information35: 38–68.
6.
BauerMWDurantJEvansG (1994) European public perceptions of science. International Journal of Public Opinion Research6: 163–186.
7.
BauerMWPetkovaJBoyadjievaP (2000) Public knowledge of and attitudes to science: Alternative measures that may end the “science war.”Science, Technology and Human Values25: 30–51.
8.
BeckU (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: SAGE.
9.
BodmerW (1985) The Public Understanding of Science. London: Royal Society.
10.
BrowneMWCudeckR (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: BollenKALongJS (eds) Testing Structural Equation Models. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE, 136–162.
11.
ByrneB (2001) Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
12.
CobbMDMacoubrieJ (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits, and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research6: 395–405.
13.
ColeCGaethGChakrabortyGLevinI (1992) Exploring the relationship among self report knowledge, objective knowledge, product usage and consumer decision making. Advances in Consumer Research19: 191.
14.
CritchleyCR (2008) Public opinion and trust in scientists: The role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers. Public Understanding of Science17: 309–327.
15.
DurantJREvansGAThomasGP (1989) The public understanding of science. Nature340: 11–14.
16.
EarleTC (2010) Trust in risk management: A model-based review of empirical research. Risk Analysis30: 541–574.
17.
EinsiedelEF (1994) Mental maps of science: Knowledge and attitudes among Canadian adults. International Journal of Public Opinion Research6: 35–44.
18.
EllenPS (1994) Do we know what we need to know? Objective and subjective knowledge effect on pro-ecological behaviors. Journal of Business Research30: 43–52.
19.
European Commission (2005) Europeans, Science and Technology (Special Eurobarometer 224). Brussels: European Commission.
20.
EvansGDurantJ (1995) The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain. Public Understanding of Science4: 57–74.
21.
FeickLParkCWMothersbaughDL (1992) Knowledge and knowledge of knowledge: What we know, what we think we know and why the difference makes a difference. Advances in Consumer Research19: 190–192.
22.
FlynnJBurnsWMertzCKSlovicP (1992) Trust as a determinant of opposition to a high level radioactive waste repository: Analysis of a structural model. Risk Analysis12: 417–429.
23.
FrewerLJHowardCHedderleyDShepherdR (1996) What determines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs. Risk Analysis16: 473–486.
24.
GaskellGAllumNWolfgangWHviid NielsenTJelsoeEKohringM. (2001) In the public eye: Representations of biotechnology in Europe. In: GaskellGBauerMW (eds) Biotechnology 1996–2000: The Years of Controversy. London: Science Museum.
25.
GaskellGAllansdottirAAllumNCorcheroCFischlerCHampelJ. (2006) Europeans and Biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and Trends (Eurobarometer 64.3). Brussels: European Commission.
26.
GiddensA (1990) The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
27.
GuttelingJHanssenLvan der VeerNSeydelE (2006) Trust in governance and the acceptance of genetically modified food in the Netherlands. Public Understanding of Science15: 103–112.
28.
HabermasJ (1989) On Society and Politics: A Reader, ed. SeidmanS. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
29.
HayesBC (2001) Gender, scientific knowledge, and attitudes toward the environment: A cross-national analysis. Political Research Quarterly54: 657–671.
30.
HayesBCTariqV (2000) Gender differences in scientific knowledge and attitudes toward science: A comparative study of four Anglo-American nations. Public Understanding of Science9: 433–447.
31.
Hornig PriestS (2001) Misplaced faith: Communication variables as predictors of encouragement for biotechnology development. Science Communication23: 97–110.
32.
House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology (2000) Science and Society: Third Report. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
33.
HuLBentlerPM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling6: 1–55.
34.
KlerckDSweeneyJC (2007) The effect of knowledge types on consumer-perceived risk and adoption of genetically modified foods. Psychology and Marketing24: 171–193.
35.
KlineRB (1998) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
36.
LuhmannN (1988) Familiarity, confidence, trust: Problems and alternatives. In: DiegoG (ed.) Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 94–107.
37.
MichaelM (1992) Lay discourses of science: Science-in-general, science-in-particular, and self. Science, Technology and Human Values17: 313–333.
38.
MiddenCJHHuijtsNMA (2009) The role of trust in the affective evaluation of novel risks: The case of CO2 storage. Risk Analysis29: 743–751.
39.
MillerJD (1987) Scientific literacy in the United States. In: EveredDO’ConnorM (eds) Communicating Science to the Public. London: Wiley & Sons, 19–37.
40.
MillerJD (2004) Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science13: 273–294.
41.
Office of Science and Technology and The Wellcome Trust (2001) Science and the public: A review of science communication and public attitudes to science in Britain. Public Understanding of Science10: 315–330.
42.
OsborneJSimonSCollinsS (2003) Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education25: 1049–1079.
43.
PetersRGCovelloVTMcCallumDB (1997) The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental risk communication. Risk Analysis17: 43–54.
44.
SiegristM (2000) The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis20: 195–203.
45.
SiegristMCvetkovichGRothC (2000) Salient value similarity, social trust and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis20: 353–362.
46.
SPSS Inc. (2008a) Version 16.0 [Computer software]. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.
47.
SPSS Inc. (2008b) AMOS (Version 16.0) [Computer software]. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.
48.
WynneB (1996) Misunderstood misunderstandings: Social identities and public uptake of science. In: IrwinAWynneB (eds) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 19–45.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
