A Short Survey Instrument to Segment Populations According to Their Attitudes Toward Science. Scale Development, Optimization and Assessment

ABSTRACT Surveys play a key role in researching public perceptions of and attitudes toward science. Accordingly, there is a breadth of often-used survey instruments available which have also been adopted for segmentation analyses. Even though many of these segmentation solutions are similar in their aims, they often include a large numbers of variables, making it more difficult for other researchers to build on these solutions, as survey time is scarce. Therefore, we demonstrate how a large number of variables that were used for a comprehensive segmentation analysis can be reduced considerably without losing too much information. We develop and test a short survey instrument to segment populations according to their attitudes toward science. Results show that segmentation results can be replicated with over 90% accuracy by reducing the instrument from 20 to 10 variables. This reduction does not significantly affect the predictive power of segment attribution on three dependent variables, which suggests that many segmentation analyses could be similarly optimized, helping researchers save survey time and standardize segmentation analyses more.

[1]  R. Bromme,et al.  Trust in Science and the Science of Trust , 2016 .

[2]  ClVIC SCIENTIFIC LlTERACY AND ATTITUDE TO SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, THE UNITED STATES, JAPAN, AND CANADA , 2005 .

[3]  J. Swim,et al.  From Alarmed to Dismissive of Climate Change: A Single Item Assessment of Individual Differences in Concern and Issue Involvement , 2017 .

[4]  A AndersonAshley,et al.  The "Nasty Effect , 2014 .

[5]  D. Hine,et al.  Audience segmentation and climate change communication: conceptual and methodological considerations , 2014 .

[6]  Mike S. Schäfer,et al.  Global warming’s five Germanys: A typology of Germans’ views on climate change and patterns of media use and information , 2017, Public understanding of science.

[7]  Sharon Dunwoody,et al.  Seeking and Processing Information about Impersonal Risk , 2006 .

[8]  D. Kahan.  'Ordinary Science Intelligence': A Science-Comprehension Measure for Study of Risk and Science Communication, with Notes on Evolution and Climate Change , 2014 .

[9]  Luke A. Buckland,et al.  Expanding the Dimensions of Epistemic Cognition: Arguments From Philosophy and Psychology , 2011 .

[10]  Catherine E. Snow,et al.  Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences , 2016 .

[11]  Dominique Brossard,et al.  The "Nasty Effect: " Online Incivility and Risk Perceptions of Emerging Technologies , 2014, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[12]  Fabien Medvecky,et al.  The disengaged in science communication: How not to count audiences and publics , 2018, Public understanding of science.

[13]  Jay Magidson,et al.  Technical Guide for Latent GOLD 5.1: Basic, Advanced, and Syntax 1 , 2016 .

[14]  R. Pardo,et al.  The Cognitive Dimension of Public Perceptions of Science: Methodological Issues , 2004 .

[15]  Anthony Leiserowitz,et al.  Communication and marketing as climate change-intervention assets a public health perspective. , 2008, American journal of preventive medicine.

[16]  Bernd Blöbaum.  Trust and Communication in a Digitized World , 2016 .

[17]  Mike S. Schäfer.  Mediated Trust in Science : Concept, Measurement and Perspectives for the "Science of Science Communication" , 2016 .

[18]  M. Bauer.  Science Culture and Its Indicators , 2012 .

[19]  D. Brossard,et al.  Disagreement and Value Predispositions: Understanding Public Opinion About Stem Cell Research , 2013 .

[20]  R. Pardo,et al.  Attitudes toward science among the European public: a methodological analysis , 2002 .

[21]  Gender differences in attitudes toward science in Switzerland , 2004 .

[22]  M. Dowd,et al.  Applebee's America: How Successful Political, Business, and Religious Leaders Connect with the New American Community , 2006 .

[23]  Bruce V. Lewenstein,et al.  Public Attitudes toward Emerging Technologies , 2005 .

[24]  Mike S. Schäfer,et al.  The different audiences of science communication: A segmentation analysis of the Swiss population’s perceptions of science and their information and media use patterns , 2018, Public understanding of science.

[25]  Minoru Nakayama,et al.  A survey of scientific literacy to provide a foundation for designing science communication in Japan , 2013, Public understanding of science.

[26]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  Identifying Like-Minded Audiences for Global Warming Public Engagement Campaigns: An Audience Segmentation Analysis and Tool Development , 2011, PloS one.

[27]  Barbara Kieslinger,et al.  Supporting emerging forms of citizen science: a plea for diversity, creativity and social innovation , 2016 .

[28]  J. Besley.  The State of Public Opinion Research on Attitudes and Understanding of Science and Technology , 2013 .

[29]  Rainer Bromme,et al.  Measuring Laypeople’s Trust in Experts in a Digital Age: The Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI) , 2015, PloS one.

[30]  Bruce V. Lewenstein,et al.  Knowledge, Reservations, or Promise? , 2002, Commun. Res..

[31]  Lars Guenther,et al.  Promises and reservations towards science and technology among South African publics: A culture-sensitive approach , 2018, Public understanding of science.

[32]  Katarina Prpić,et al.  Science, the public, and social elites: How the general public, scientists, top politicians and managers perceive science , 2011, Public understanding of science.

[33]  Office of Science and Technology and the Wellcome Trus.  Science and the public: A review of science communication and public attitudes toward science in Britain , 2001, Public Understanding of Science.

[34]  B. Wynne,et al.  Misunderstanding science? : the public reconstruction of science and technology , 1996 .