Perceived familiarity or factual knowledge? Comparing operationalizations of scientific understanding

This study compares two frequently used operationalizations of understanding: factual knowledge and perceived familiarity. The authors argue that these measurements--which have been used interchangeably in past research--are conceptually distinct and should be treated as such. Using hierarchical linear ordinary least squares regression, this study provides evidence that factual knowledge and perceived familiarity are only slightly correlated and are influenced differently by predicting variables, such as media use and cognitive processing variables. As a result, the use of these measures may result in different assessments of the levels of public understanding, which has important implications for future policy decisions. Copyright The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com, Oxford University Press.

[1]  N. Allum,et al.  Science in Society: Re-Evaluating the Deficit Model of Public Attitudes , 2004 .

[2]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  The need for cognition. , 1982 .

[3]  J. Sterman,et al.  Understanding public complacency about climate change: adults’ mental models of climate change violate conservation of matter , 2007 .

[4]  Michael D. Cobb,et al.  Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust , 2004, Emerging Technologies: Ethics, Law and Governance.

[5]  Steven Epstein,et al.  Patient Groups and Health Movements , 2008 .

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

[7]  Wendy C. Crone,et al.  Nanotechnology and the public: Effectively communicating nanoscale science and engineering concepts , 2007 .

[8]  Walter F. Bodmer,et al.  The Public Understanding of Science , 1986 .

[9]  Li-tze Hu,et al.  Academic self-efficacy and first year college student performance and adjustment. , 2001 .

[10]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  The changing information environment for nanotechnology: online audiences and content , 2010, Journal of nanoparticle research : an interdisciplinary forum for nanoscale science and technology.

[11]  H J Morowitz,et al.  SCIENTIFIC LITERACY , 1986, The Lancet.

[12]  Jon D. Miller,et al.  Public perceptions of science and technology : a comparative study of the European Union, the United States, Japan, and Canada , 1997 .

[13]  Geoffrey L. Cohen,et al.  Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. , 2009, Nature nanotechnology.

[14]  Jon D. Miller.  The measurement of civic scientific literacy , 1998 .

[15]  D. Kahneman.  A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality. , 2003, The American psychologist.

[16]  Sharon Dunwoody,et al.  The emergence of nano news: Tracking thematic trends and changes in media coverage of nanotechnology , 2009 .

[17]  R. C. Laugksch.  Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview , 2000 .

[18]  James Shanahan,et al.  Do They Know What They Read? Building a Scientific Literacy Measurement Instrument Based on Science Media Coverage , 2006 .

[19]  Stephen G. West,et al.  Validity of self-evaluation of ability: A review and meta-analysis , 1982 .

[20]  Sharon Dunwoody,et al.  Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. , 2007, Nature nanotechnology.

[21]  Dominique Brossard,et al.  Deference to Scientific Authority Among a Low Information Public: Understanding U.S. Opinion on Agricultural Biotechnology , 2006 .

[22]  Tanya Sheetz,et al.  Nanotechnology: Awareness and societal concerns , 2005 .

[23]  Janet Kaye,et al.  Biomedical Communications: Purposes, Audiences, and Strategies , 2002 .

[24]  Bruce V. Lewenstein,et al.  A Media Effects Model for Public Perceptions of Science and Technology , 2002 .

[25]  John Hattie,et al.  The Relationship Between Self and Achievement/Performance Measures , 1982 .

[26]  Brian Wynne,et al.  May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. , 2004 .

[27]  J. Ziman.  Selling science , 1997, Nature.

[28]  R. Crosby,et al.  Perceived versus actual knowledge about correct condom use among U.S. adolescents: results from a national study. , 2001, The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine.

[29]  Michael Morgan,et al.  Green or brown? Television and the cultivation of environmental concern , 1997 .

[30]  Wolff-Michael Roth,et al.  Scientific literacy as collective praxis , 2002 .

[31]  G. Marcus,et al.  Anxiety, Enthusiasm, and the Vote: The Emotional Underpinnings of Learning and Involvement During Presidential Campaigns , 1993, American Political Science Review.

[32]  Jane Macoubrie.  Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government , 2006 .

[33]  Sharon Dunwoody,et al.  Linking the Heuristic-Systematic Model and Depth of Processing , 2002, Commun. Res..

[34]  Jon D. Miller.  Public Understanding of, and Attitudes toward, Scientific Research: What We Know and What We Need to Know , 2004 .

[35]  B. Wynne.  Knowledges in Context , 1991 .

[36]  P. Spargo,et al.  Construction of a paper-and-pencil Test of Basic Scientific Literacy based on selected literacy goals recommended by the American Association for the Advancement of Science , 1996 .

[37]  S. Keeter,et al.  What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters , 1996 .

[38]  Kajsa E. Dalrymple,et al.  Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. , 2009, Nature nanotechnology.

[39]  Dennis F. Kinsey,et al.  The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns , 1993 .

[40]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Motivated Heuristic and Systematic Processing , 1999 .

[41]  Meryl P. Gardner,et al.  Self-Perceived Knowledge: Some Effects on Information Processing for a Choice Task , 1988 .

[42]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  The Public and Nanotechnology: How Citizens Make Sense of Emerging Technologies , 2005 .

[43]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Attitude strength, attitude structure, and resistance to change , 1995 .

[44]  Martin W. Bauer,et al.  Public Knowledge of and Attitudes to Science: Alternative Measures That May End the “Science War” , 2000 .

[45]  Jon D. Miller,et al.  Public Acceptance of Evolution , 2006, Science.

[46]  Shelley E. Taylor,et al.  Social cognition, 2nd ed. , 1991 .

[47]  Bruce V. Lewenstein,et al.  Religiosity as a perceptual filter: examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology , 2009 .

[48]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[49]  S. Chaiken.  Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. , 1980 .

[50]  L. Gross,et al.  Growing Up with Television: Cultivation Processes , 2002 .

[51]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  From enabling technology to applications: The evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology , 2011 .

[52]  Anna M. Waldron,et al.  The current state of public understanding of nanotechnology , 2006 .

[53]  S. Priest.  The North American opinion climate for nanotechnology and its products: Opportunities and challenges , 2006 .

[54]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  The Influence of Knowledge and Deference toward Scientific Authority: A Media Effects Model for Public Attitudes toward Nanotechnology , 2006 .

[55]  Christian E. H. Beaudrie,et al.  Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. , 2009, Nature nanotechnology.

[56]  James J. Lindsay,et al.  The Accuracy-Confidence Correlation in the Detection of Deception , 1997, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[57]  Eliot R. Smith.  Model of social inference processes , 1984 .

[58]  J. Metcalfe.  Feeling of knowing in memory and problem solving. , 1986 .