It is repeatedly observed that public engagement with science is more common among members of the public with a more privileged socio-economic profile; however little evidence on the mechanisms of this relationship exists. This article proposes one such mechanism in deference towards authority. Through Structural Equation Model on Eurobarometer 2021 data, I investigate if favoring expert guidance over public participation in decision-making on science-related issues mediates the relationship between people’s socio-economic status and engagement with science. Results show that higher socio-economic status is associated with greater engagement but also with favor toward experts’ deliberation. Preferring experts over public involvement in decision-making is also associated with more informative engagement and less general engagement. Nevertheless, this mediating role is rather weak. Moreover, the study examines how other perceptions of science relate to socio-economic status and engagement, emphasizing the broader social and structural factors that shape opportunities for participation.
AlexiouKWigginsJ (2019) Measuring individual legitimacy perceptions: Scale development and validation. Strategic Organization17(4): 470–496.
2.
ArcherLDawsonEDeWittJSeakinsAWongB (2015) “Science capital”: A conceptual, methodological, and empirical argument for extending bourdieusian notions of capital beyond the arts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching52(7): 922–948.
3.
ArnsteinSR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners35(4): 216–224.
4.
BauerMWPansegrauPShuklaR (2018) The Cultural Authority of Science. London: Routledge.
5.
BauerMWShuklaRAllumN (eds) (2012) The Culture of Science: How the Public Relates to Science across the Globe. London: Routledge.
6.
BeckUGiddensALashS (1994) Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.
7.
Ben-EliyahuAMooreDDorphRSchunnCD (2018) Investigating the multidimensionality of engagement: Affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagement across science activities and contexts. Contemporary Educational Psychology53: 87–105.
8.
BengtssonÅChristensenH (2016) Ideals and actions: Do citizens’ patterns of political participation correspond to their conceptions of democracy?Government and Opposition51(2): 234–260.
9.
BertsouEPastorellaG (2017) Technocratic attitudes: A citizens’ perspective of expert decision-making. West European Politics40(2): 430–458.
10.
BesleyJC (2015) Predictors of perceptions of scientists: Comparing 2001 and 2012. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society35(1–2): 3–15.
11.
BesleyJCLeeNMPressgroveG (2021) Reassessing the variables used to measure public perceptions of scientists. Science Communication43(1): 3–32.
12.
BirchS (2010) Perceptions of electoral fairness and voter turnout. Comparative Political Studies43(12): 1601–1622.
13.
BourdieuP (1986) The forms of capital. In: RichardsonJG (ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York, NY: Greenwood Press.
14.
BowlerSDonovanTKarpJA (2007) Enraged or engaged? Preferences for direct citizen participation in affluent democracies. Political Research Quarterly60(3): 351–362.
15.
BreenR (2005) Foundations of a neo-Weberian class analysis. In WrightEO (ed.) Approaches to Class Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16.
BrossardDNisbetMC (2006) Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding US opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research19(1): 24–52.
17.
BucchiMNeresiniF (2007) Science and public participation. In: HackettEJAmsterdamskaOLynchM (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 3rd edn.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 449–472.
18.
BuchelOLuijkxRAchterbergP (2021) Objective and subjective socioeconomic status as sources of status-legitimacy effect and legitimation of income inequality. Political Psychology42(3): 463–481.
19.
ChenK (2021) How deliberative designs empower citizens’ voices: A case study on Ghana’s deliberative poll on agriculture and the environment. Public Understanding of Science30(2): 179–195.
20.
ChilversJKearnesM (2020) Remaking participation in science and democracy. Science, Technology, & Human Values45(3): 347–380.
21.
ClarkTNLipsetSM (1991) Are social classes dying?International Sociology6(4): 397–410.
22.
ColognaVBertholdAKreisselALSiegristM (2024) Attitudes towards technology and their relationship with pro-environmental behaviour: Development and validation of the GATT scale. Journal of Environmental Psychology95: 102258.
23.
DawsonE (2014a) “Not designed for us”: How science museums and science centers socially exclude low-income, minority ethnic groups. Science Education98(6): 981–1008.
24.
DawsonE (2014b) Reframing social exclusion from science communication: Moving away from “barriers” towards a more complex perspective. Journal of Science Communication13(2): 1–5.
25.
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.
26.
DelicadoA (2021) Introduction: How the sociology of science and technology addresses science and society relations. In: DelicadoAVon RotenFCPripićK (eds) Communicating Science and Technology in Society. Cham: Springer, pp. 137–159.
27.
DiemerMAMistryRSWadsworthMELópezIReimersF (2013) Best practices in conceptualizing and measuring social class in psychological research. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy13(1): 77–113.
28.
DornbuschSMScottWRBuschingBC (1975) Evaluation and the Exercise of Authority (pp. 28–43). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
29.
DreyerMKosowHBauerAChonkovaBKozarevVTimotijevicL (2021) Public engagement with research: Citizens’ views on motivations, barriers and support. Research for All5(2): 302–319.
30.
EmerySBMulderHAFrewerLJ (2015) Maximizing the policy impacts of public engagement: A European study. Science, Technology, & Human Values40(3): 421–444.
31.
EndersCKTofighiD (2007) Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods12(2): 121.
32.
EriksonRGoldthorpeJHPortocareroL (1979) Intergenerational class mobility in three Western European societies: England, France, and Sweden. The British Journal of Sociology30(4): 415–441.
33.
FalkJHStorksdieckMDierkingLD (2007) Investigating public science interest and understanding: Evidence for the importance of free-choice learning. Public Understanding of Science16(4): 455–469.
34.
FleskenAHartlJ (2020) Ethnicity, inequality, and perceived electoral fairness. Social Science Research85: 102363.
35.
FriesenJPLaurinKShepherdSGaucherDKayAC (2019) System justification: Experimental evidence, its contextual nature, and implications for social change. British Journal of Social Psychology58(2): 315–339.
36.
FüchslinTSchäferMSMetagJ (2019) Who wants to be a citizen scientist? Identifying the potential of citizen science and target segments in Switzerland. Public Understanding of Science28(6): 652–668.
37.
FuglsangS (2025) Loving life? Loving science? Quality of life perceptions predict public attitudes toward science. International Journal of Public Opinion Research37(1): edae067.
38.
GanaKBrocG (2019) Structural Equation Modeling with Lavaan. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
39.
GanzeboomHBGTreimanDJ (2003) Three internationally standardised measures for comparative research on occupational status. In: Hoffmeyer-ZlotnikJHPWolfC (eds) Advances in Cross-national Comparison. Boston, MA: Springer.
40.
GaskellGEinsiedelEHallmanWPriestSHJacksonJOlsthoornJ (2005) Social values and the governance of science. Science310(5756): 1908–1909.
41.
GauchatG (2011) The cultural authority of science: Public trust and acceptance of organized science. Public Understanding of Science20(6): 751–770.
42.
GauchatG (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.
43.
GodecSArcherLDawsonE (2022) Interested but not being served: Mapping young people’s participation in informal STEM education through an equity lens. Research Papers in Education37(2): 221–248.
44.
GodecSKingHArcherLDawsonESeakinsA (2018) Examining student engagement with science through a Bourdieusian notion of field. Science & Education27(5): 501–521.
45.
GruskyD (2019) Social Stratification, Class, Race, and Gender in Sociological Perspective. London: Routledge.
46.
HadjarABeckM (2010) Who does not participate in elections in Europe and why is this? A multilevel analysis of social mechanisms behind non-voting. European Societies12(4): 521–542.
47.
HargittaiEFüchslinTSchäferMS (2018) How do young adults engage with science and research on social media? Some preliminary findings and an agenda for future research. Social Media+ Society4(3): 2056305118797720.
48.
HowellELWirzCDScheufeleDABrossardDXenosMA (2020) Deference and decision-making in science and society: How deference to scientific authority goes beyond confidence in science and scientists to become authoritarianism. Public Understanding of Science29(8): 800–818.
49.
HuZMaBBaiR (2022) Motivation to participate in secondary science communication. Frontiers in Psychology13: 961846.
50.
JensenEBuckleyN (2014) Why people attend science festivals: Interests, motivations and self-reported benefits of public engagement with research. Public Understanding of Science23(5): 557–573.
51.
JostJTBanajiMR (1994) The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology33(1): 1–27.
52.
JostJTBanajiMRNosekBA (2004) A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology25(6): 881–919.
53.
KangKEVedlitzAGoldsmithCLSeaveyI (2023) Optimism and pessimism toward science: A new way to look at the public’s evaluations of science and technology discoveries and recommendations. Politics and the Life Sciences42(2): 234–253.
54.
KingKAllumNStonemanPCernatA (2021) Estimating measurement equivalence of the 12-item General Health Questionnaire across ethnic groups in the UK. Psychological Medicine: 1–9.
55.
KlineRB (2015) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York, NY: Guilford publications.
56.
KumpuV (2022) What is public engagement and how does it help to address climate change? A review of climate communication research. Environmental Communication: 1–13.
57.
LevinsonR (2010) Science education and democratic participation: An uneasy congruence?Studies in Science Education46(1): 69–119.
58.
LijphartA (1997) Unequal participation: Democracy’s unresolved dilemma presidential address, American Political Science Association, 1996. American Political Science Review91(1): 1–14.
59.
LindstamE (2014) Support for technocratic decision-making in the OECD countries: Attitudes toward apolitical politics.
60.
LiuLPerlaviciuteGSquintaniL (2022) Opposing out loud versus supporting in silence: Who wants to participate in decision-making about energy projects?Environmental Research Letters17(11): 114053.
61.
LosiL (2023) Who engages with science, and how? An empirical typology of Europeans’ science engagement. Public Understanding of Science32(6): 798–814.
62.
LosiL (2025) Beyond deliberation: Alternative forms of public (dis)engagement with science. Science Communication47(2): 182–210.
63.
McPhetresJZuckermanM (2018) Religiosity predicts negative attitudes towards science and lower levels of science literacy. Plos One13(11): e0207125.
64.
MacqHTancoigneÉStrasserBJ (2020) From deliberation to production: Public participation in science and technology policies of the European Commission (1998–2019). Minerva58(4): 489–512.
65.
MakarovsKAchterbergP (2018) Science to the people: A 32-nation survey. Public Understanding of Science27(7): 876–896.
66.
MarresN (2016) Material Participation: Technology, the Environment and Everyday Publics. Cham: Springer.
MedeNGColognaVBergerSBesleyJBrickCJoubertM, et al. (2025) Public communication about science in 68 countries: Global evidence on how people encounter information about science and engage with it. OSF Preprint.
69.
MejlgaardNStaresS (2010) Participation and competence as joint components in a cross-national analysis of scientific citizenship. Public Understanding of Science19(5): 545–561.
70.
MejlgaardNStaresS (2013) Performed and preferred participation in science and technology across Europe: Exploring an alternative idea of “democratic deficit.” Public Understanding of Science22(6): 660–673.
71.
OakesJMRossiPH (2003) The measurement of SES in health research: Current practice and steps toward a new approach. Social Science & Medicine56(4): 769–784.
72.
OberskiDL (2014) Evaluating sensitivity of parameters of interest to measurement invariance in latent variable models. Political Analysis22(1): 45–60.
73.
PalecoCPeterSGSeoaneNSKaufmannJArgyriP (2021) Inclusiveness and diversity in citizen science. The Science of Citizen Science261.
74.
PandyaRDibnerKA and National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine (U.S.) Committee on Designing Citizen Science to Support Science Learning (2018) Learning through Citizen Science: Enhancing Opportunities by Design. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
75.
PikettyT (2014) Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
76.
PocockJG (1976) The classical theory of deference. The American Historical Review81(3): 516–523.
77.
ReynoldsJLKennedyEBSymonsJ (2022) If deliberation is the answer, what is the question? Objectives and evaluation of public participation and engagement in science and technology. Journal of Responsible Innovation: 1–24.
78.
RidgewayCL (2000) The formation of status beliefs Improving status construction theory. Advances in Group Processes77–102.
79.
RoseKMKorzekwaKBrossardDScheufeleDAHeislerL (2017) Engaging the public at a science festival: Findings from a panel on human gene editing. Science Communication39(2): 250–277.
80.
RosenthalS (2018) Motivations to seek science videos on YouTube: Free-choice learning in a connected society. International Journal of Science Education Part B8(1): 22–39.
81.
RoweGFrewerLJ (2005) A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values30(2): 251–290.
82.
SarisWESatorraAVan der VeldWM (2009) Testing structural equation models or detection of misspecifications?Structural Equation Modeling16(4): 561–582.
83.
SchrögelPKolleckA (2019) The many faces of participation in science: Literature review and proposal for a three-dimensional framework. Science & Technology Studies32(2): 77–99.
SolomonJ (2013) Science of the People: Understanding and Using Science in Everyday Contexts. London: Routledge.
86.
StilgoeJLockSJWilsdonJ (2014) Why should we promote public engagement with science?Public Understanding of Science23(1): 4–15.
87.
StirlingA (2008) “Opening up” and “closing down” power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values33(2): 262–294.
88.
StrasserBBaudryJMahrDSanchezGTancoigneE (2019) “Citizen science”? Rethinking science and public participation. Science & Technology Studies32: 52–76.
89.
SuddabyRBitektineAHaackP (2017) Legitimacy. Academy of Management Annals11(1): 451–478.
90.
TomlinsonMWatermeyerR (2022) When masses meet markets: Credentialism and commodification in twenty-first century Higher Education. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education43(2): 173–187.
91.
TorkkeliKKarvonenMPritupDEnqvistJ (2025) ‘It benefits every moment’: Understandings of and engagements in science-related practices in everyday life. Public Understanding of Science34(6): 791–809.
92.
Van der ToornJFeinbergMJostJTKayACTylerTRWillerR, et al. (2015) A sense of powerlessness fosters system justification: Implications for the legitimation of authority, hierarchy, and government. Political Psychology36(1): 93–110.
93.
WeberM (1997) The theory of social and economic organization. New York: Simon and Schuster.
94.
WeingartPJoubertMConnowayK (2021) Public engagement with science—Origins, motives and impact in academic literature and science policy. Plos One16(7): e02542017.
95.
WrightDRUnderhillLGKeeneMKnightAT (2015) Understanding the motivations and satisfactions of volunteers to improve the effectiveness of citizen science programs. Society & Natural Resources28(9): 1013–1029.
96.
YossoTJ (2005) Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education8(1): 69–91.
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.
