Causal or spurious? The relationship of knowledge and attitudes to trust in science and technologyausal or spurious? The relationship of knowledge and attitudes to trust in science and technology

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 22, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 624-641

  Roberts, Mary Roduta ^a   Reid, Grace ^a   Schroeder, Meadow ^b   Norris, Stephen P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^b Calgary Learning Centre   (Canada)

Author keywords

science communication; scientific attitudes; scientific literacy; structural equation modeling; trust

Indexed keywords

EID: 84879207703     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: 13616609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963662511420511     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Alba JW,Hutchinson JW.Knowledge calibration: What consumers know and what they think they know.Journal of Consumer Research. 2000;27:123-156.
2. Allum N.An empirical test of competing theories of trust: The case of GM food.Risk Analysis. 2007;27:935-946.
3. Barnett J,Cooper H,Senior V.Belief in public efficacy, trust, and attitudes toward modern genetic science.Risk Analysis. 2007;27:921-933.
4. Bates SR,Faulkner W,Parry S,Cunningham-Burley S."How do we know it's not been done yet?!" Trust, trust building and regulation in stem cell research.Science and Public Policy. 2010;37:703-718.
5. Bauer MW.Socio-demographic correlates of DK-responses in knowledge surveys: Self-attributed ignorance of science.Social Science Information. 1996;35:38-68.
6. Bauer MW,Durant J,Evans G.European public perceptions of science.International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 1994;6:163-186.
7. Bauer MW,Petkova J,Boyadjieva P.Public knowledge of and attitudes to science: Alternative measures that may end the "science war.".Science, Technology and Human Values. 2000;25:30-51.
8. Beck URisk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: SAGE; 1992:.
9. Bodmer WThe Public Understanding of Science. London: Royal Society; 1985:.
10. Browne MW,Cudeck RTesting Structural Equation Models. Bollen KALong JS, ed. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE; 1993:136-162.
11. Byrne BStructural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2001:.
12. Cobb MD,Macoubrie J.Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits, and trust.Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 2004;6:395-405.
13. Cole C,Gaeth G,Chakraborty G,Levin I.Exploring the relationship among self report knowledge, objective knowledge, product usage and consumer decision making.Advances in Consumer Research. 1992;19:191.
14. Critchley CR.Public opinion and trust in scientists: The role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers.Public Understanding of Science. 2008;17:309-327.
15. Durant JR,Evans GA,Thomas GP.The public understanding of science.Nature. 1989;340:11-14.
16. Earle TC.Trust in risk management: A model-based review of empirical research.Risk Analysis. 2010;30:541-574.
17. Einsiedel EF.Mental maps of science: Knowledge and attitudes among Canadian adults.International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 1994;6:35-44.
18. Ellen PS.Do we know what we need to know? Objective and subjective knowledge effect on pro-ecological behaviors.Journal of Business Research. 1994;30:43-52.
19. Europeans, Science and Technology (Special Eurobarometer 224). Brussels: European Commission; 2005:.
20. Evans G,Durant J.The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain.Public Understanding of Science. 1995;4:57-74.
21. Feick L,Park CW,Mothersbaugh DL.Knowledge and knowledge of knowledge: What we know, what we think we know and why the difference makes a difference.Advances in Consumer Research. 1992;19:190-192.
22. Flynn J,Burns W,Mertz CK,Slovic P.Trust as a determinant of opposition to a high level radioactive waste repository: Analysis of a structural model.Risk Analysis. 1992;12:417-429.
23. Frewer LJ,Howard C,Hedderley D,Shepherd R.What determines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs.Risk Analysis. 1996;16:473-486.
24. Gaskell G,Allum N,Wolfgang W,Hviid Nielsen T,Jelsoe E,Kohring M, et alBiotechnology 1996-2000: The Years of Controversy. Gaskell GBauer MW, ed. London: Science Museum; 2001:.
25. Gaskell G,Allansdottir A,Allum N,Corchero C,Fischler C,Hampel J, et alEuropeans and Biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and Trends (Eurobarometer 64.3). Brussels: European Commission; 2006:.
26. Giddens AThe Consequences of Modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 1990:.
27. Gutteling J,Hanssen L,van der Veer N,Seydel E.Trust in governance and the acceptance of genetically modified food in the Netherlands.Public Understanding of Science. 2006;15:103-112.
28. Habermas JOn Society and Politics: A Reader. Seidman S, ed. Boston, MA: Beacon Press; 1989:.
29. Hayes BC.Gender, scientific knowledge, and attitudes toward the environment: A cross-national analysis.Political Research Quarterly. 2001;54:657-671.
30. Hayes BC,Tariq V.Gender differences in scientific knowledge and attitudes toward science: A comparative study of four Anglo-American nations.Public Understanding of Science. 2000;9:433-447.
31. Hornig Priest S.Misplaced faith: Communication variables as predictors of encouragement for biotechnology development.Science Communication. 2001;23:97-110.
32. Science and Society: Third Report. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office; 2000:.
33. Hu L,Bentler PM.Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives.Structural Equation Modeling. 1999;6:1-55.
34. Klerck D,Sweeney JC.The effect of knowledge types on consumer-perceived risk and adoption of genetically modified foods.Psychology and Marketing. 2007;24:171-193.
35. Kline RBPrinciples and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: Guilford Press; 1998:.
36. Luhmann NTrust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations. Diego G, ed. Oxford: Basil Blackwell; 1988:94-107.
37. Michael M.Lay discourses of science: Science-in-general, science-in-particular, and self.Science, Technology and Human Values. 1992;17:313-333.
38. Midden CJH,Huijts NMA.The role of trust in the affective evaluation of novel risks: The case of CO2 storage.Risk Analysis. 2009;29:743-751.
39. Miller JDCommunicating Science to the Public. Evered DO'Connor M, ed. London: Wiley & Sons; 1987:19-37.
40. Miller JD.Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know.Public Understanding of Science. 2004;13:273-294.
41. Science and the public: A review of science communication and public attitudes to science in Britain.Public Understanding of Science. 2001;10:315-330.
42. Osborne J,Simon S,Collins S.Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications.International Journal of Science Education. 2003;25:1049-1079.
43. Peters RG,Covello VT,McCallum DB.The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental risk communication.Risk Analysis. 1997;17:43-54.
44. Siegrist M.The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology.Risk Analysis. 2000;20:195-203.
45. Siegrist M,Cvetkovich G,Roth C.Salient value similarity, social trust and risk/benefit perception.Risk Analysis. 2000;20:353-362.
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. Wynne BMisunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Irwin AWynne B, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1996:19-45.