Many scholars have argued for the need to communicate openly not only scientific successes to the public but also limitations, such as the tentativeness of research findings, in order to enhance public trust and engagement. Yet, it has not been quantitatively assessed how the perception of scientific uncertainties relates to engagement with science on an individual level. In this article, we report the development and testing of a new questionnaire in English and German measuring the perceived uncertainty of scientific evidence. Results indicate that the scale is reliable and valid in both language versions and that its two subscales are differentially related to measures of engagement: Science-friendly attitudes were positively related only to ‘subjectively’ perceived uncertainty, whereas interest in science as well as behavioural engagement actions and intentions were largely uncorrelated. We conclude that perceiving scientific knowledge to be uncertain is only weakly, but positively related to engagement with science.
AikenheadGSRyanAG (1992) The development of a new instrument: ‘Views on Science-Technology-Society’ (VOSTS). Science Education76(5): 477–491. DOI: 10.1002/sce.3730760503.
2.
AllenSJHubbardR (1986) Regression equations for the latent roots of random data correlation matrices with unities on the diagonal. Multivariate Behavioral Research21(3): 393–396.
3.
BakH–J (2001) Education and public attitudes toward science: Implications for the ‘deficit model’ of education and support for science and technology. Social Science Quarterly82(4): 779–795. DOI: 10.1111/0038-4941.00059.
4.
BammerGSmithsonM (eds) (2008) Uncertainty and Risk: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. London: Earthscan.
5.
BauerMWJensenP (2011) The mobilization of scientists for public engagement. Public Understanding of Science20(1): 3–11. DOI: 10.1177/0963662510394457.
6.
BonettaL (2007) Scientists enter the blogosphere. Cell129(3): 443–445. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell. 2007.04.032.
7.
BrechmanJLeeC-JCappellaJN (2009) Lost in translation? A comparison of cancer-genetics reporting in the press release and its subsequent coverage in the press. Science Communication30(4): 453–474.
8.
BrommeRKienhuesDStahlE (2008) Knowledge and epistemological beliefs: An intimate but complicate relationship. In: KhineMS (ed.) Knowing, Knowledge, and Beliefs: Epistemological Studies Across Diverse Cultures. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 423–444.
9.
BrowneMWCudeckR (1992) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research21(2): 230–258.
10.
BühnerM (2006) Einführung in die Test- und Fragebogenkonstruktion [Introduction to Test and Questionnaire Construction]. Munich: Pearson Studium.
11.
CattellRB (1966) The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research1(2): 245–276.
12.
CobernWWLovingCC (2002) Investigation of preservice elementary teachers’ thinking about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching39(10): 1016–1031. DOI: 10.1002/tea.10052.
13.
Conley AM, Pintrich PR, Vekiri I, et al. (2004)Changes in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemporary Educational Psychology29(2): 186–204. DOI: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.01.004.
14.
CrismoreAVande KoppleWJ (1997) Hedges and readers: Effects on attitudes and learning.In: MarkkanenRSchröderH (eds) Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co, pp. 83–114.
15.
EpsteinS (1994) Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist49: 709–724.
16.
EvansGADurantJR (1995) The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain. Public Understanding of Science4(1): 57–74. DOI: 10.1088/0963-6625/4/1/004.
17.
FeistGJ (2012) Predicting interest in and attitudes toward science from personality and need for cognition. Personality and Individual Differences52(7): 771–775. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2012.01.005.
18.
FisseniH-J (1997) Lehrbuch der psychologischen Diagnostik [Textbook of Psychological Diagnostics]. Göttingen: Hogrefe-Verlag.
19.
FranklinJ (2009) What Science Knows: And How It Knows It. New York, NY: Encounter Books.
20.
FraserBJ (1978) Development of a test of science-related attitudes. Science Education62(4): 509–515. DOI: 10.1002/sce.3730620411.
21.
GlasmanLRAlbarracínD (2006) Forming attitudes that predict future behavior: A meta-analysis of the attitude-behavior relation. Psychological Bulletin132(5): 778–822. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.778.
22.
GoldacreB (2005) The MMR sceptic who just doesn’t understand science. The Guardian, 2November. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk
23.
GRADE Working Group (2004) Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ328: 1490–1497. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490.
24.
HoferBK (2000) Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychology25(4): 378–405. DOI: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1026.
25.
HoferBKPintrichPR (eds) (2002) Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs about Knowledge and Knowing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26.
HolzingerKJSwinefordS (1937) The bi-factor method. Psychometrika2(1): 41–54.
27.
HoughtonDCGrewalR (2000) Please let’s get an answer – Any answer: Need for consumer cognitive closure. Psychology & Marketing17(11): 911–934. DOI: 10.1002/1520-6793(200011)17:11<911::AID-MAR1>3.0.CO;2-4.
28.
HowsonCUrbachP (1989) Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach. La Salle, IL: Open Court.
29.
IrwinAWynneB (1996) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30.
JensenJD (2008) Scientific uncertainty in news coverage of cancer research: Effects of hedging on scientists and journalists credibility. Human Communication Research34(3): 347–369. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.00324.x.
31.
JensenJDHurleyRJ (2012) Conflicting stories about public scientific controversies: Effects of news convergence and divergence on scientists’ credibility. Public Understanding of Science21(6): 689–704. DOI: 10.1177/0963662510387759.
32.
JohnsonBBSlovicP (1995) Presenting uncertainty in health risk assessment: Initial studies of its effects on risk perception and trust. Risk Analysis15(4): 485–494.
33.
KaspersonRERennOSlovicP. (1988) The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis8(2): 177–187.
34.
KieneH (2001) Komplementäre Methodenlehre der klinischen Forschung: Cognition-Based Medicine [Complementary Methodology of Clinical Research: Cognition-Based Medicine]. Berlin: Springer.
35.
KruglanskiAW (2004) The Psychology of Closed Mindedness: Essays in Social Psychology. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
36.
LaiWYLaneT (2009) Characteristics of medical research news reported on front pages of newspapers. PLoS ONE4(7): e6103. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.000610.
37.
LedermanNG (1999) Teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice: Factors that facilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching36: 916–929.
38.
LedermanNGWadePDBellRL (1998) Assessing the nature of science: What is the nature of our assessments?Science & Education7: 595–615.
39.
LeshnerAI (2003) Public engagement with science. Science299(5609): 977.
40.
MillerJD (1983) Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus112(2): 29–48.
41.
MillerJD (2004) Public understanding of, and science toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science13(3): 273–294. DOI: 10.1177/0963662504044908.
42.
MillerS (2001) Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science10(1): 115–120. DOI: 10.1088/0963-6625/10/1/308.
43.
National Science Board (2010) Science and Engineering Indicators: 2010. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
44.
OttoLBacherleP (2011) Politisches Interesse Kurzskala (PIKS) – Entwicklung und Validierung [Short Scale Political Interest (SSPI) – Development and validation]. Politische Psychologie [Journal of Political Psychology] 1(1): 19–35.
45.
PardoRCalvoF (2002) Attitudes toward science among the European public: A methodological analysis. Public Understanding of Science11(2): 155–195. DOI: 10.1088/0963-6625/11/2/305.
46.
PardoRCalvoF (2004) The cognitive dimension of public perceptions of science: Methodological issues. Public Understanding of Science13(3): 203–227. DOI: 10.1177/0963662504045002.
47.
PearsonG (2001) The participation of scientists in public understanding of science activities: The policy and practice of the U.K. Research Councils. Public Understanding of Science10(1): 121–137. DOI: 10.1088/0963-6625/10/1/309.
48.
PellizzoniL (2003) Knowledge, uncertainty and the transformation of the public sphere. European Journal of Social Theory6(3): 327–355. DOI: 10.1177/13684310030063004.
49.
PinchTJ (1981) The sun-set: The presentation of certainty in scientific life. Social Studies of Science11(1): 131–158. DOI: 10.1177/030631278101100106.
50.
PoliakoffEWebbTL (2007) What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities?Science Communication29(2): 242–263. DOI: 10.1177/1075547007308009.
51.
PopperKR (1954) Degree of confirmation. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science5(18): 143–149. DOI: 10.2307/685171.
52.
PopperKR (1959) The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.
53.
PowellMDunwoodySGriffinR (2007) Exploring lay uncertainty about an environmental health risk. Public Understanding of Science16(3): 323–343. DOI: 10.1177/0963662507074491.
54.
RammstedtBJohnO (2007) Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality41(1): 203–212. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001.
55.
RatcliffeM (2004) Nature of science.In: SharpJ (ed.) Developing Primary Science. Exeter: Learning Matters Ltd, pp. 4–18.
56.
RetzbachJRetzbachAMaierM. (2013) Effects of repeated exposure to science TV shows on beliefs about scientific evidence and interest in science. Journal of Media Psychology25(1): 3–13.
57.
ScheufeleDACorleyEAShihT. (2008) Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nature Nanotechnology4(2): 91–94. DOI: 10.1038/NNANO.2008.361.
58.
SchlinkSWaltherE (2007) Kurz und gut: Eine deutsche Kurzskala zur Erfassung des Bedürfnisses nach kognitiver Geschlossenheit [Short and good: A German short scale to determine the need for cognitive closure]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie [Journal of Social Psychology] 38(3): 153–161. DOI: 10.1024/0044-3514.38.3.153.
59.
Schommer-AikinsM (2004) Explaining the epistemological belief system: Introducing the embedded systemic model and coordinated research approach. Educational Psychologist39(1): 19–29. DOI: 10.1207/s15326985ep3901_3.
SchommerM (1998) The influence of age and education on epistemological beliefs. British Journal of Educational Psychology68: 551–562.
62.
SchrawGBendixenLDDunkleME (2002) Development and validation of the Epistemic Belief Inventory (EBI).In: HoferBKPintrichPR (eds) Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs about Knowledge and Knowing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 261–275.
63.
SlovicPFinucaneMLPetersE. (2004) Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis24(2): 311–322.
64.
StahlEBrommeR (2007) The CAEB: An instrument for measuring connotative aspects of epistemological beliefs. Learning and Instruction17: 773–785. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.016.
65.
StockingSH (1999) How journalists deal with scientific uncertainty.In: FriedmanSDunwoodySRogersC (eds) Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 23–41.
66.
StockingSHHolsteinLW (2009) Manufacturing doubt: Journalists’ roles and the construction of ignorance in a scientific controversy. Public Understanding of Science18(1): 23–42. DOI: 10.1177/0963662507079373.
67.
TytlerR (2001) Dimensions of evidence, the public understanding of science and science education. International Journal of Science Education23(8): 815–832. DOI: 10.1080/09500690010016058.
68.
Van de VijverFJRLeungK (1997) Methods and Data Analysis for Cross-Cultural Research. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
69.
WynneB (1992) Uncertainty and environmental learning: Reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm. Global Environmental Change2(2): 111–127.
70.
WickerAW (1969) Attitudes versus actions: The relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. Journal of Social Issues25(4): 41–78. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1969.tb00619.x.
71.
WildsonJWillisR (2004) See-Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: Demos.
72.
ZehrSC (1999) Scientists’ representations of uncertainty.In: FriedmanSDunwoodySRogersC (eds) Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 3–21.
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.
