IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v39y2012i6p761-774.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perceived familiarity or factual knowledge? Comparing operationalizations of scientific understanding

Author

Listed:
  • Pete Ladwig
  • Kajsa E. Dalrymple
  • Dominique Brossard
  • Dietram A. Scheufele
  • Elizabeth A. Corley

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Pete Ladwig & Kajsa E. Dalrymple & Dominique Brossard & Dietram A. Scheufele & Elizabeth A. Corley, 2012. "Perceived familiarity or factual knowledge? Comparing operationalizations of scientific understanding," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(6), pages 761-774, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:39:y:2012:i:6:p:761-774
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scs048
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Laura Witzling & Bret Shaw & David Trechter, 2019. "Which communication channels shape normative perceptions about buying local food? An application of social exposure," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 36(3), pages 443-454, September.
    2. Li Li & John Robert Bautista, 2019. "Examining Personal and Media Factors Associated with Attitude towards Genetically Modified Foods among University Students in Kunming, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-14, November.
    3. Adebanke L. Adebayo & Rochelle Davidson Mhonde & Nathaniel DeNicola & Edward Maibach, 2020. "The Effectiveness of Narrative Versus Didactic Information Formats on Pregnant Women’s Knowledge, Risk Perception, Self-Efficacy, and Information Seeking Related to Climate Change Health Risks," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-13, September.
    4. Xiaodong Yang & Lai Wei & Qi Su, 2020. "How Is Climate Change Knowledge Distributed among the Population in Singapore? A Demographic Analysis of Actual Knowledge and Illusory Knowledge," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-13, May.
    5. Emma Soane & Iljana Schubert & Simon Pollard & Sophie Rocks & Edgar Black, 2016. "Confluence and Contours: Reflexive Management of Environmental Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(6), pages 1090-1107, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:39:y:2012:i:6:p:761-774. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.