Understanding the heterogeneity of mechanisms that form public attitudes towards science and technology policymaking is essential to the establishment of an effective public engagement platform. Using the 2011 public opinion survey data from Japan (n = 6,136), I divided the general public into three categories: the Attentive public, who are willing to actively engage with science and technology policymaking dialogue; the Interested public, who have moderate interest in science and technology but rely on experts for policy decisions; and the Residual public, who have minimal interest in science and technology. On the basis of the results of multivariate regression analysis, I have identified several key predispositions towards science and technology and other socio-demographic characteristics that influence the shift of individuals from one category of the general public to another. The findings provide a foundation for understanding how to induce more accountable, evidence-based science and technology policymaking.
AchterbergP (2014) Knowing hydrogen and loving it too? Information provision, cultural predispositions, and support for hydrogen technology among the Dutch. Public Understanding of Science23: 445–453.
2.
AchterbergPHoutmanDvan BohemenSManevskaK (2010) Unknowing but supportive? Predispositions, knowledge, and support for hydrogen technology in the Netherlands. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy35: 6075–6083.
3.
AjzenI (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes50: 179–211.
4.
AllumNSturgisPTabouraziDBrunton-SmithI (2008) Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science17: 35–54.
5.
AlmondGA (1950) The American People and Foreign Policy. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace and Company.
6.
BauerMWAllumNMillerS (2007) What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science16: 79–95.
7.
BauerMWJensenP (2011) The mobilization of scientists for public engagement. Public Understanding of Science20: 3–11.
8.
BauerMWPetkovaKBoyadjievaP (2000) Public knowledge of and attitudes to science: Alternative measures thatmayend the ‘science war’. Science, Technology & Human Values25: 30–51.
9.
BeckerABDalrympleKEBrossardDScheufeleDAGuntherAC (2010) Getting citizens involved: How controversial policy debates stimulate issue participation during a political campaign. International Journal of Public Opinion Research22: 181–203.
10.
BesleyJC (2010) Public engagement and the impact of fairness perceptions on decision favorability and acceptance. Science Communication32: 256–280.
11.
BrewerPRLeyBL (2011) Multiple exposures: Scientific controversy, the media, and public responses to Bisphenol A. Science Communication33: 76–97.
12.
BrewerPRLeyBL (2013) Whose science do you believe? Explaining trust in sources of scientific information about the environment. Science Communication35: 115–137.
13.
BrossardDNisbetMC (2007) Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding U.S. opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research19: 24–52.
14.
BrossardDScheufeleDAKimELewensteinBV (2009) Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science18: 546–558.
DijkstraAMGuttelingJM (2012) Communicative aspects of the public-science relationship explored: Results of focus group discussions about biotechnology and genomics. Science Communication34: 363–391.
17.
DijkstraAMGuttelingJMSwartJAAWieringaNFvan der WindtHJSeydelER (2012) Public participation in genomics research in the Netherlands: Validating a measurement scale. Public Understanding of Science21: 465–477.
18.
EvansGDurantJ (1995) The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain. Public Understanding of Science4: 57–74.
19.
GaskellGEinsiedelEHallmanWPriestSHJacksonJOlsthoornJ (2005) Social values and the governance of science. Science310: 1908–1909.
20.
JacobsonNButterillDGoeringP (2004) Organizational factors that influence university-based researchers’ engagement in knowledge transfer activities. Science Communication25: 246–259.
21.
JensenPRouquierJ-BKreimerPCroissantY (2008) Scientists who engage with society perform better academically. Science and Public Policy35: 527–541.
22.
KnightTBarnettJ (2010) Perceived efficacy and attitudes towards genetic science and science governance. Public Understanding of Science19: 386–402.
23.
LiuHPriestS (2009) Understanding public support for stem cell research: Media communication, interpersonal communication and trust in key actors. Public Understanding of Science18: 704–718.
24.
MillerEBellLMBuysL (2007) Public understanding of carbon sequestration in Australia: Socio-demographic predictors of knowledge, engagement and trust. Australian Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society5: 15–33.
25.
MillerJD (1983a) Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus112: 29–48.
26.
MillerJD (1983b) The American People and Science Policy: The Role of Public Attitudes in the Policy Process. New York, NY: Pergamon Press.
27.
MillerJD (1998) The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science7: 203–223.
28.
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.
National Institute of Science and Technology Policy of Japan (NISTEP) (2008) An attempt of internet-survey on public attitudes towards science and technology. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/11035/466
32.
National Institute of Science and Technology Policy of Japan (NISTEP) (2010) A possibility of internet-survey on public attitudes towards science and technology. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/11035/474
33.
National Institute of Science and Technology Policy of Japan (NISTEP) (2012a) The change of the public attitudes to science and technology: The findings from face-to-face interviews and from a monthly internet survey. Available at: http://data.nistep.go.jp/dspace/handle/11035/1156
NisbetMCScheufeleDA (2009) What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany96: 1767–1778.
37.
PardoRCalvoF (2002) Attitudes toward science among the European public: A methodological analysis. Public Understanding of Science11: 155–195.
38.
PopkinSL (1994) The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
39.
PriestSH (2001) Misplaced faith: Communication variables as predictors of encouragement for biotechnology development. Science Communication23: 97–110.
Roduta RobertsMReidGSchroederMNorrisSP (2013) Causal or spurious? The relationship of knowledge and attitudes to trust in science and technology. Public Understanding of Science22: 624–641.
42.
ScheufeleDA (2014) Science communication as political communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America111: 13585–13592.
43.
SiegristM (2000) The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis20: 195–204.
44.
SiegristMCvetkovichG (2000) Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis20: 713–719.
SturgisPAllumN (2004) Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science13: 55–74.
47.
TurcanuCPerkoTLaesE (2014) Public participation processes related to nuclear research installations: What are the driving factors behind participation intention?Public Understanding of Science23: 331–347.
48.
VainioAPaloniemiR (2013) Does belief matter in climate change action?Public Understanding of Science22: 382–395.
49.
Von RotenFC (2004) Gender differences in attitudes toward science in Switzerland. Public Understanding of Science13: 191–199.
50.
WynneB (1992) Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science1: 281–304.
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.
