As societal discussion on the public opinion of science and technology ignites over and over again, understanding where such opinions are rooted is increasingly relevant. A handful of prior studies have suggested personality traits as a root of science and technology attitudes. However, these report mixed findings, and employ small student or convenience samples. This leaves considerable uncertainty regarding personality traits’ relation to attitudes toward science and technology. If in fact stable psychological predispositions play a role, this has considerable implications for science policy and science communication. This article investigates the relationship between the big five personality traits and science attitudes in Germany and the Netherlands. Findings indicate that personality traits are related to science attitudes but only very weakly so, among them openness to experience and negative emotionality are most notably related to science attitudes, whereas extraversion, in contrast to prior studies, shows no relation to science and technology attitudes.
AllumNSturgisPTabouraziDBrunton-SmithI (2008) Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science17(1): 35–54.
2.
AnderssonIPerssonJKajoniusP (2022) Even the stars think that I am superior: Personality, intelligence and belief in astrology. Personality and Individual Differences187: 111389.
3.
BesleyJCLeeNMPressgroveG (2021) Reassessing the variables used to measure public perceptions of scientists. Science Communication43(1): 3–32.
4.
BleidornWKandlerCRiemannRSpinathFMAngleitnerA (2009) Patterns and sources of adult personality development: Growth curve analyses of the NEO PI-R scales in a longitudinal twin study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology97(1): 142–155.
5.
CorrPJMatthewsG (2020) The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6.
DamianRISpenglerMSutuARobertsBW (2019) Sixteen going on sixty-six: A longitudinal study of personality stability and change across 50 years. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology117(3): 674–695.
7.
DawsonE (2018) Reimagining publics and (non) participation: Exploring exclusion from science communication through the experiences of low-income, minority ethnic groups. Public Understanding of Science27(7): 772–786.
8.
DigmanJM (1990) Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology41(1): 417–440.
9.
DuckittJSibleyCG (2010) Personality, ideology, prejudice, and politics: A dual-process motivational model. Journal of Personality78(6): 1861–1893.
10.
EcklundEHScheitleCPPeiferJBolgerD (2017) Examining links between religion, evolution views, and climate change skepticism. Environment and Behavior49(9): 985–1006.
11.
EdmondsGWJacksonJJFayardJVRobertsBW (2008) Is character fate, or is there hope to change my personality yet?Social and Personality Psychology Compass2(1): 399–413.
12.
FeistGJ (2012) Predicting interest in and attitudes toward science from personality and need for cognition. Personality and Individual Differences52(7): 771–775.
13.
FeistGJGormanME (1998) The psychology of science: Review and integration of a nascent discipline. Review of General Psychology2(1): 3–47.
14.
FurnhamA (2007) Are modern health worries, personality and attitudes to science associated with the use of complementary and alternative medicine?British Journal of Health Psychology12(Pt. 2): 229–243.
15.
García-ArchJBallestero-ArnauMPérez HoyasLGiaiottiF (2022) Disproven but still believed: The role of information and individual differences in the prediction of topic-related pseudoscience acceptance. Applied Cognitive Psychology36(2): 268–282.
16.
GauchatGW (2008) A test of three theories of anti-science attitudes. Sociological Focus41(4): 337–357.
17.
GauchatGW (2012) Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review77(2): 167–187.
18.
HartmannMMüllerP (2023) Acceptance and adherence to COVID-19 preventive measures are shaped predominantly by conspiracy beliefs, mistrust in science and fear—A comparison of more than 20 psychological variables. Psychological Reports126(4): 1742–1783.
19.
HendriksFKienhuesDBrommeR (2015) Measuring laypeople’s trust in experts in a digital age: The Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI). PLoS ONE10(10): e0139309.
20.
HummCSchrögelP (2020) Science for all? Practical recommendations on reaching underserved audiences. Frontiers in Communication5: 42.
21.
InglehartRHaerpferCMorenoAWelzelCKizilovaKDiez-MedranoJ, et al. (2018) World Values Survey Wave 6 (2010-2014). Vienna: World Values Survey Association.
JostJTNosekBAGoslingSD (2008) Ideology: Its resurgence in social, personality, and political psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science3(2): 126–136.
24.
LaajajRMacoursKPinzon HernandezDAAriasOGoslingSDPotterJ, et al. (2019) Challenges to capture the big five personality traits in non-WEIRD populations. Science Advances5(7): eaaw5226.
25.
LeeKAshtonMC (2018) Psychometric properties of the HEXACO-100. Assessment25(5): 543–556.
26.
LuQCuiS (2022) Not completely unusable: Procedures to rescue the big-five personality data in the World Values Survey wave 6. Personality and Individual Differences199: 111832.
27.
LudekeSGLarsenEG (2017) Problems with the Big Five assessment in the World Values Survey. Personality and Individual Differences112: 103–105.
28.
McCraeRRJohnOP (1992) An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality60(2): 175–215.
29.
McCrightAMDentzmanKChartersMDietzT (2013) The influence of political ideology on trust in science. Environmental Research Letters8(4): 044029.
30.
McPhetresJZuckermanM (2018) Religiosity predicts negative attitudes towards science and lower levels of science literacy. PLoS ONE13(11): e0207125.
31.
MedeNGSchaferMSMetagJKlingerK (2022) Who supports science-related populism? A nationally representative survey on the prevalence and explanatory factors of populist attitudes toward science in Switzerland. PLoS ONE17(8): e0271204.
32.
MillerJD (1983) Scientific literacy—A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus112(2): 29–48.
33.
MillerJDPardoRNiwaF (1997) Public Perceptions of Science and Technology: A Comparative Study of the European Union, the United States, Japan, and Canada. Bilbao: Fundación BBV-Chicago Academy of Sciences.
34.
MontagCElhaiJD (2019) A new agenda for personality psychology in the digital age?Personality and Individual Differences147: 128–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.03.045
35.
NisbetECCooperKEGarrettRK (2015) The partisan brain: How dissonant science messages lead conservatives and liberals to (dis)trust science. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science658(1): 36–66.
36.
PecharEBernauerTMayerF (2018) Beyond political ideology: The impact of attitudes towards government and corporations on trust in science. Science Communication40(3): 291–313.
37.
PoldermanTJBenyaminBde LeeuwCASullivanPFvan BochovenAVisscherPM, et al. (2015) Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies. Nature Genetics47(7): 702–709.
38.
RammstedtBGoldbergLRBorgI (2010) The measurement equivalence of big five factor markers for persons with different levels of education. Journal of Research in Personality44(4): 53–61.
39.
ReifAGuentherL (2021) How representative surveys measure public (dis)trust in science: A systematisation and analysis of survey items and open-ended questions. Journal of Trust Research11(2): 94–118.
40.
RoosJM (2014) Measuring science or religion? A measurement analysis of the National Science Foundation sponsored science literacy scale 2006-2010. Public Understanding of Science23(7): 797–813.
41.
Sanchez-RoigeSGrayJCMacKillopJChenCHPalmerAA (2018) The genetics of human personality. Genes Brain Behav17(3): e12439.
42.
SimpsonARiosK (2019) Is science for atheists? Perceived threat to religious cultural authority explains U.S. Christians’ distrust in secularized science. Public Understanding of Science28(7): 740–758.
43.
SmithPB (2004) Acquiescent response bias as an aspect of cultural communication style. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology35(1): 50–61.
44.
SotoCJJohnOP (2017) The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology113(1): 117–143.
45.
SturgisPAllumN (2004) Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science13(1): 55–74.
46.
SturgisPBrunton-SmithIFife-SchawC (2010) Public attitudes to genomic science: An experiment in information provision. Public Understanding of Science19(2): 166–180.
47.
TommasiMPetriccaPCozzolinoGCasadioC (2021) Attitudes towards scientific knowledge: Social dispositions and personality traits. Synthese199(1–2): 119–139.
48.
WynneB (1992) Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science1(3): 281–304.
49.
ZieglerMPoropatAMellJ (2014) Does the length of a questionnaire matter? Expected and unexpected answers from generalizability theory. Journal of Individual Differences35(4): 250.
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.
