The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: a meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
The correlation between knowledge and attitudes has been the source of controversy in research on the public understanding of science (PUS). Although many studies, both quantitative and qualitative, have examined this issue, the results are at best diverse and at worst contradictory. In this paper, we review the evidence on the relationship between public attitudes and public knowledge about science across 40 countries using a meta-analytic approach. We fit multilevel models to data from 193 nationally representative surveys on PUS carried out since 1989. We find a small positive correlation between general attitudes towards science and general knowledge of scientific facts, after controlling for a range of possible confounding variables. This general relationship varies little across cultures but more substantially between different domains of science and technology. Our results suggest that PUS research needs to focus on understanding the mechanisms that underlie the clear association that exists between knowledge and attitudes about science.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research
Rosenthal, R. (1991) · doi:10.4135/9781412984997 · Cited by 4,635
Hox, J., Moerbeek, M., & van de Schoot, R. (2002) · doi:10.4324/9781410604118 · Cited by 2,419
Publication bias in meta-analysis its causes and consequences
Thornton, A. (2000) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(99)00161-4 · Cited by 1,291 · cited 2×
“is a problem that can make meta-analyses prone to overestimating effect sizes where the data are collected solely from published work (Thornton and Lee, 2000).”
Wolf, F. (1986) · doi:10.4135/9781412984980 · Cited by 784
Cited by
Gauchat, G. (2012) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/0003122412438225 · Cited by 1,091
Drummond, C., & Fischhoff, B. (2017) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1704882114 · Cited by 607
The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks
Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D., & Mandel, G. (2012) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate1547 · Cited by 352
The Public's Bounded Understanding of Science
Bromme, R., & Goldman, S. R. (2014) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2014.921572 · Cited by 282
Hornberger, M., Bewersdorff, A., & Nerdel, C. (2023) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100165 · Cited by 276
Opposing ends of the spectrum: Exploring trust in scientific and religious authorities
Cacciatore, M. A., Browning, N., Scheufele, D. A., Brossard, D., Xenos, M. A., & Corley, E. A. (2018) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662516661090 · Cited by 70
Markus, A., Pfister, J., Carolus, A., Hotho, A., & Wienrich, C. (2024) · Computers and Education Open · doi:10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100176 · Cited by 49
Sanz-Menéndez, L., & Cruz-Castro, L. (2019) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662519840946 · Cited by 47
A Vision for University Biology Education for Non-science Majors
Gormally, C., & Heil, A. (2022) · CBE—Life Sciences Education · doi:10.1187/cbe.21-12-0338 · Cited by 28
Metadata
- Authors
- Allum, N., Sturgis, P., Tabourazi, D., & Brunton-Smith, I.
- Venue
- Public Understanding of Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2008-01
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 35-54
- ISSN
- 0963-6625 (ISSN-L)
- 1361-6609
- OpenAlex
- W2151635741
- Cited by
- 669
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 3.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
